A tactic in arguing against pro-gun advocates

[Bragi]

I've only recently followed the debate at DU on guns, but something that occurs to me is that a good way to frame the discussion for people wanting to address the plague of guns in America is to move away (temporarily) from all the 2nd amendment and legal issues, and to just politely ask gun-toting gun advocates why they are so afraid of their neighbors?

The point is that most people are not so timid and fearful that they feel the need to carry lethal weapons, nor are they scared simply because they they can't shoot other people at malls, at work, in schools, whatever.

Most people get by in the community without the inordinate fear of others that is displayed by people who insist on carrying guns. So why are people who carry guns so afraid of others? And what can be done to help them overcome their fears?

I think that line of questioning takes the discussion to a new and more constructive level.

The initial reaction of your gun-packing neighbor or coworker to this question, of course, may well be apoplexy, confusion and anger at having their timidity exposed. However, if more people keep asking them that question, maybe they will come to realize that they too can live without inordinate fear, and aspire to living a normal, gun-free life, like most people in the community.

[shadowrider]

1. Jeez. You've only recently followed the debate, but you have no idea what the debate is about n/t

[Bragi]

2. Are you a gun-toting pro-gun advocate?

If so, why are you so afraid of people that you think you need a lethal weapon for protection?

[monmouth]

4. I'm thinking pro-gun advocates have other issues...n/t

[Deep13]

7. Yeah, like health care, the environment and the comatose labor movement.

Many, many, issues.

[Bragi]

8. Maybe...

I know there's an indisputable relationship between gender and guns, for example, which is rooted in a macho (but false) belief that guns are associated with bravery. I think associating gun-carrying with being scared undercuts the macho-brave myth.

[PavePusher]

69. What? Cite to evidence, please... n/t

[shadowrider]

12. Your description of me as a "gun-toting pro-gun advocate" does nothing

to promote any type of intelligent conversation. I'd hate to start one against an obviously unarmed opponent.

[Bragi]

15. Perhaps you missed the question mark?

Or is your answer "yes", and you're just looking for way not to answer the question: why are you so afraid of everyone that you think you need lethal firepower?

[derby378]

158. Because your question is irrelevant and not grounded in what we call reality?

It's dogma, son - take a deep breath and admit it. It's the fist step in freeing yourself from it.

[Jenoch]

192. You seem to think

that all RKBA people are paranoid, gun-totin' fools. That is not the case. I'm in favor of maintaining gun rights and I don't carry a weapon. The majority of permit to carry holders in Minnesota NEVER actually carry a gun out in public. RKBA people for the most part are not 'afraid of their neighbors'. By phrasing the debate in the manner that you have you are just attempting to annoy your opponents with insults instead of conducting a rational discussion.

[Ineeda]

3. LOL - tried that. Sadly, it's an exercise in futility!

[Bragi]

5. Tell me why you think that?

Seriously, I find it disturbs fearful, gun-toting people and makes them think, which may provide an opening for new thought. What's your experience with this approach?

[benEzra]

10. Perhaps because blithely assigning motives to others that you yourselves create for them

comes across as arrogant and willfully uninformed.

I own guns (including small-caliber ones with modern styling that the prohibitionists make such a fuss about), and I hold a carry license and have for years. I have posted at some length previously about why I choose to own guns, and will repost much of that here for the sake of civil and convenient discussion:



My wife and I don't own guns out of fear, and I don't think many people do. As I have mentioned elsewhere on DU and on CGCS, the defensive utility is part of the picture for most people, certainly, but it's largely a competence thing, just like skill with any other martial art.

Here are some thoughts that I've posted before here on DU and CGCS, in no particular order.

Proficiency with firearms is a martial art just like isshinryu karate, tae kwan do, kenpo, or tai chi, and can gives a sense of accomplishment and competence just like any other human discipline. The Japanese concept of bushido applies just as much to the gun culture as to other martial arts cultures. I have some moderate experience in the Asian martial arts culture (isshinryu), and there are a lot of similarities between the gun culture and the traditional martial arts culture, and just as with empty-hand martial arts, proficiency in self-defense is a symbiotic benefit that is a worthwhile purpose in its own right.

Just as with the other martial arts, IMHO training and skill development are an end in itself, very much a Zen thing, if you will. To shoot well you must view shooting in a very Zen-like way; breath control, minimization of muscle tremors, concentration, sharp focus on the front sight, smoothness... A lot of the shooters I know also have a thing for archery, which is pretty much the same thing, and my wife did fencing for a while.

Some people pride themself on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf course. Others pride themselves on how accurately they can shoot a firearm.

Also, I am a certifiable physics geek, and there are very few inexpensive hobbies that are more physics-intensive than rifle shooting. (Aviation is more physics-intensive, but it's not inexpensive...) Many shooters are mechanically inclined, and I'll bet the percentage of photographers and engineers among shooters is higher than in the population at large. My younger sister is a shooter and she also happens to be a professional engineer, with degrees in both engineering and mathematics.

It's also a "freedom thing." The guns in my gun safe are a tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, a tool of personal security, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines. I do not own them by a grant of permission from some social elite; I own them because I choose to, and because as a mentally competent adult with a clean record, it is my right to choose to.

Here's the root of the disconnect, I think. A lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership. I think to some degree, they have come to see "guns" as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady's husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don't think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it.

I'm on the other side of the coin. My great-grandparents were married in 1900, and one of the wedding presents was a nice his-and-hers set of defensive revolvers. My grandparents grew up owning handguns, rifles, and shotguns; so did my parents. My dad had a "save" with a semiautomatic pistol in the early 1970's, when I was around 5 years old (he didn't even have to draw it; the guys who approached him late one night in rural NC saw his holstered gun, looked at each other, and left).

Like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22's regularly at 16, had a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine). My wife, from Maine, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I'm 40 years old, I've never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Most gun owners haven't experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had "saves" with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem; it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it's not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

There IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on everybody in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

The thing is, the misuse of guns gets a hell of a lot more publicity than their responsible use. Part of that, I think, is merely ignorance on the topic from the MSM, and part of it reflects active MSM bias on the topic. But responsible use is FAR more common than misuse, just as responsible car use is far more common than drunk driving. American shooters collectively fire nine to fourteen billion (yes, with a "b") rounds a year in target shooting and training, with a safety record better than that of golf.

And I'm not kidding about shooting being Zen. The best shooting advice I have ever received is "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." The reason Hollywood shooting is always John Freaking Rambo is that J.F. Rambo doesn't have to actually hit what he's shooting blanks at; they'll produce the "hits" in the editing room.

I shoot competitively (IDPA/IPSC style, both pistol and rifle, against the clock, 12 to 18 rounds per stage). The winner of the most recent match I competed in was a guy in his 60's who looked like a college professor, bespectacled, with a short white beard and white hair. The key to shooting well is the same as it is in any other martial art, the ability to maintain a placid mental focus in a dynamic environment; it's a mental game, and adrenaline and testosterone are hindrances, not helps.

I think if you were to personally go shooting, just to see what it's like, I think you'd find it much different than you probably imagine.

[shadowrider]

11. Some people pride themself on how well they can smack a small white ball with a stick on a golf

course.

Also described as, "A good walk ruined".

[Katya Mullethov]

40. A damned crying shameful waste

of unlimited handlebar dragging traction a golf course is . Damnable things . Oughtta be a law .

This message actually WAS brought to you , by Carl's Jr .

[oneshooter]

174. I would prefer a 600yd rifle range with a 300yd pistol range. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

178. We could coexist easily , peacefully .

I bet the golfers wouldn't want us around though .

[Bragi]

14. A couple of points

First, thanks for your thoughts.

Second, I want to clarify my views to this extent:

- I am not opposed to ownership of guns for the purpose of hunting, target shooting, or other sporting uses.

- Nor am I opposed to ownership of guns by someone who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable reason to be afraid of some specific person (or group of persons) who may intend to do them harm using a lethal weapon.

Having said that, I think ordinary people who have no reasonable grounds to fear a specific attack from a specific person have no reason to carry guns. None.

If they feel that need, then I think that their fear is irrational. They should be offered help to start living a gun-free life like most other people in their community.

[shadowrider]

16. This 82 year old woman, beaten with her own cane

would have no way to demonstrate a "reasonable reason" to obtain a weapon, but it saved her life.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/82-year-old-fights-off-attacker/

[Bragi]

22. Good example of fear mongering at work!

The NRA thrives on rare, anecdotal instances of heroic self-defense using lethal weapons.

However, given the rare nature of these instances, why are their supporters so afraid of others in their community?

And can these scared people be taught to live fear-free, gun-free lives like most other people in their community?

[shadowrider]

23. Would you have preferred this woman be beaten to death instead of defending her life? n/t

[Bragi]

28. I respectfully decline to debate your anecdote

I could respond by selecting a competing anecdote where irresponsible and outrageously harmful gun use is evident, and demand that you justify inaction in light of that single instance.

Instead of perusing a point that will result in sterile debate, I'll just ask why it is you are so afraid of people that you think you need to carry a lethal weapon? Has someone threatened your life?

[shadowrider]

77. No, no one has threatened my life. But, like the 82 year old woman

some day, they might.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. This is why the argument is unwinnable.

Good example of fear mongering at work!

This is why this kind of "need based" argument is futile.

You made the case that most people don't really need a firearm.

An example was provided of someone who you normally wouldn't think needed one, who did, and used it to save herself.

Your response to this was FEARMONGERING!!!!

The simple fact is this: Most people who lawfully carry a firearm are extremely unlikely to be involved in crimes. Thus there is really no harm in allowing them to carry firearms.

[Bragi]

34. Don't debate anecdotes

I can come up with an anecdote about irresponsible gun use for every anecdote of responsible gun use, so the argument gets sterile real quick.

I think asking gun owners who claim they need guns for protection why they have irrational fear of others helps to break through the sterile debate that prevails on this issue.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. All it takes is one example to disprove a theory.

I think asking gun owners who claim they need guns for protection why they have irrational fear of others helps to break through the sterile debate that prevails on this issue.

Even though they are just anecdotes, the fact is there are plenty of examples of ordinary citizens using a firearm to defend themselves. Thus, even though they are just anecdotes, they do completely destroy the argument that "no one needs a gun to defend themselves." Clearly, some people do, and have done so.

Since the cost of obtaining the tools to defend oneself are cheap compared to the cost of needing them and not having them, it is therefore not irrational to obtain the tools even if the chance of needing them is small.

And since the people who legally carry concealed firearms are hardly ever involved in crime, you can't even claim that they are a menace to the rest of the public at large.

[Katya Mullethov]

100. For every example of me or my spouse using the threat of violence

And we certainly have our own tales to tell . For each of our responsible (and expedient)use anecdotes , one could easily find hundreds and thousands of examples of drunken reprobates using a firearm irresponsibly . I'm sold .

[rl6214]

90. I think gun control advocates

have an irrational fear of an object out in their community being carried daily that they have absolutely no knowledge about, yet they live in fear. They have an irrational fear of a cold, steel object.

See how that works? I like that, I can do it too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Lots of anecdotes = statistics

When Mr McDonald successfully argued his rights in front of the Supreme Court last year there was no singular personal threat; the neighborhood he lived in was overrun by gangs and violent criminals.

The need for declaring a specific person is a violent threat does nothing except subject the potential victim to the delays and missteps of an already burdened court system. If courts were so awesome at stopping violence restraining orders would actually be worth something but they aren't.

It's also very distressing when you say things along the lines of setting aside issues of legality and rights so as to focus on emotions.

I hope you never accept that line of argument on abortion or gay rights.

My husband doesn't need to feel macho. He's strong and cut from working 14 hours a day with heavy machinery. There are few men he couldn't take in a fair fight but he is the gentlest, most giving soul you will ever meet. He'll talk someone out of a fight by buying them a beer, I've seen it. If he ever is in a fight I don't want it to be fair because he would never start it and anyone who would start with him deserves to lose.

My husband keeps a gun in the house. We do it because out in the country police response times are 15 minutes or more. I don't carry a gun but I know how to be functional with the one in the house.

We aren't scared of anyone.

My question to you is: why are you scared of us you would so easily talk about taking away our rights and legal ownership when we would never be a threat to you?

[Bragi]

108. You might accidentally shoot me or someone else

Since you aren't a trained law enforcement professional, I fear for the safety of anyone around you if/when you fire your lethal weapon.

But more important, if you weren't so fearful, you would have no reason for a gun.

Assuming no-one has a contract out for you, why are you so afraid of people that you think you need a lethal weapon in your home, despite the potential danger it's misuse poses to you and your neighbors?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. My next nearest neighbor is a quarter mile away, who am I going to accidently shoot?

And my husband is a combat vet. He has more training, practice and practical use of firearms than any police officer I could think of.

We aren't afraid of anyone. Rural areas are sparsely populated. Of course that means we have fewer people and strangers also stick out more readily but at the same time practically everyone around here has a gun in the home and everyone else knows it.

Folks are actually a lot more relaxed than urban dwellers.

Why do you need a freedom of speech? Do you fear government so much you need to speak against it?

Why do you need a 4th amendment? Do you far the government looking through your home or listening to your phone calls without a good excuse?

Why do you need a 5th amendment? Do you fear a government forcing confessions out of you?

No anecdotes please.

[Katya Mullethov]

116. If you do a lot of trigger time without your eyes and ears on

There is a distinct possibility that you could in fact put your eye out , and you -will- permanently damage your hearing . This creates unnecessary and avoidable medical costs .

I think you might agree that cheap and readily available suppressors are not only a pressing public health issue ...... but a human right .

[X_Digger]

114. Why are you so irrationally afraid of those who carry legally?

As a group, we're up to 45x less likely to be convicted of a crime than your average person walking down the street.

Here's a graph I put together with information available from the TX DPS & DSHS websites. It compares the rate of convictions of CHL holders to the rate of conviction by NON-chl holders. If I compared the number of crimes side by side, the CHL bar wouldn't even show up.



http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. Needs more lavender

Hi x_digger!

:hi:

[X_Digger]

121. If I had a favorite team, I could coordinate the colors :)

Whaddya think, steelers or bears? :)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. I thought it was steelers and packers?

And that pretty much much exhausts my football knowledge. I watch with Lover Boy, dad and FIL but I can't even figure out why their shirts seem to change color from one game to the next.

We were watching this past weekend when MIL came out of kitchen and asked how the game was going. Lover Boy replied it was going great but they kept interrupting the cheerleaders with a football game. MIL cracked him on the head with the big spoon she was holding.

It was pretty loud.

She scolded him, "You got that pretty little girl on your arm and you're going to run your trash mouth." She then scolded my FIL to straighten up his son and stormed back into the kitchen.

I looked at LB and smiled and said I liked his mom.

He rubbed his head and said she gives him a headache.

[X_Digger]

131. Yours exceeds mine.. and I'm a stone's throw from where it'll be this year. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

147. END OF THREAD.

That pretty much nails it, X_Digger.

Bragli accuses people who carry concealed firearms with expressing an irrational fear of crime.

Yet Bragli himself has an irrational fear of people who carry concealed firearms. As the data clearly shows (and for other states also), CCW-permit carriers are hardly ever involved in crime! You have more to fear from NON-CCW permit holders you meet on the street!

[spin]

175. Nice work on the graph! (n/t)

[Recursion]

207. FTW (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

115. Real world statistics do not support you.

CCW permit holders are actually safer than the police with their guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

145. SO HERE IS WHAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO

You might accidentally shoot me or someone else Since you aren't a trained law enforcement professional, I fear for the safety of anyone around you if/when you fire your lethal weapon.

But more important, if you weren't so fearful, you would have no reason for a gun.

Here is the real meat and potatoes that the argument all boils down to.

Bragi is convinced that people who carry concealed firearms are expressing an irrational fear for their safety by carrying a firearm. He is correct in that most people who carry a concealed firearm won't ever need them.

But then, by pushing for restrictions on concealed carry, Bragi is expressing an irrational fear for his safety by people who legally carry concealed firearms. What he doesn't realize is that most people who lawfully carry concealed firearms are never involved in firearm-related crime.

There is nothing to fear from the vast majority of legal CCW permit holders. The rate of revocation for them, per the states that publish the data, is less than 2%.

Since lawful CCW permit holders are so unlikely to commit firearm crime, it is irrational to push for concealed carry restrictions by lawful citizens.

[Recursion]

206. How much gun training do you think police officers get? (nt)

[Spoonman]

35. Rare?

Please feel free to enlighten us with the data with which you base your assertion.

Don't bother replying with another opinion, as you will learn through a little research that defensive use of guns is actually higher than total homicides committed with them.

Given your assertion that self defense use of firearms is rare, the homicide rate would therefor be even more rare, and your concern about gun violence is unjustified.

It sucks to have your own "logic" used against you, but being educated in the subject matter of the debate helps avoid embarrassing moments such as this.

[Bragi]

41. Funny thing about "data"

Last week I learned that the NRA lobbyists have made it pretty well impossible to actually publicly fund any data gathering or research that "might" help advocates of gun control.

That's when I began to see how sterile and stilted real debate on this issue has become, what with public health data being suppressed, ideological opponents hurling talking points, etc.

So, I'm hoping that maybe we can make some headway arguing "values" here, and in particular, the value of being at ease in our own communities, and in our own heads, such that we understand we don't have to be so afraid of each other that we believe we need lethal weapons to threaten or shoot people.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Arguing "values" is another way of arguing "emotions"

So, I'm hoping that maybe we can make some headway arguing "values" here, and in particular, the value of being at ease in our own communities, and in our own heads, such that we understand we don't have to be so afraid of each other that we believe we need lethal weapons to threaten or shoot people.

No, we can't argue "values". We can only argue facts. Arguing about values involves pleas to emotion. Any debate that involves altering the US Constitution needs to be grounded in fact.

[Spoonman]

52. FAIL!!!!

Please provide the research from which you base your assertion.

Anything short of that in your next reply is another failure!

[petronius]

68. If this 'data' comment is referring to the CDC subthread a few days ago,

note that I added the text and interpretation of the CDC restriction to that thread. It doesn't actually do what wikipedia or the poster(s) in that thread seemed to think - i.e., public funding of firearms research and data collection is not prohibited, no matter the anticipated results of the study...

[rl6214]

93. Oh no

The evil NRA lobbyist.

Tell us why you fear the NRA and their lobbyists. Did they harm you in some way?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. Show us on this doll where the bad letters touched you.

[X_Digger]

122. *snort* you owe me a soda for that one. n/t

[PavePusher]

70. DoJ stats record some 1 million violent crimes per year.

That's 1 for every 300 people, rate-wise. Not that "rare" anymore is it?

Now I will grant you that crime rates have been trending downwards for some time. Is that a result of more liberal self-defense laws, or something else? Hard to say, most likely a combination of many things. But you can not dismiss the facts out of hand without competeing evidence.

[X_Digger]

78. Actually, that's 'completed' crimes..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf

There were 5.4M violent crimes (attempted or completed) per the above link, in 2007.

Rough rate is 1 in 50 per their calculations. (see table 1, 4th column)

eta: changed link to actual tables

[PavePusher]

79. Oops, I should know better than to rely on my memory... Thanks! n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Great information! Thanks. Bookmarked the report. N/T

[benEzra]

33. Your choice is a rational one, and I have no problem with it.

However, I do reserve the right to choose differently than you, even though I do not share the fear of attack that you would make a prerequisite for my ownership and/or carry licensure. Gun ownership is a deeply personal choice and will always remain so.

I do not have a problem with background checks for purchase, or the laws that prevent anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent from touching a gun, nor am I opposed to limiting that choice to the longstanding consensus of what is and is not a Title 1 civilian firearm (non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed, under .51 caliber except for shotguns). But I do firmly believe that mentally competent adults with clean records should retain the right to so choose.

BTW, if in fact if someone were to find themselves in a threatening situation as dire as you describe, one would want to have developed competence with a firearm prior to that point, no?

[Atypical Liberal]

56. How do you make that determination?

- Nor am I opposed to ownership of guns by someone who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable reason to be afraid of some specific person (or group of persons) who may intend to do them harm using a lethal weapon.

Having said that, I think ordinary people who have no reasonable grounds to fear a specific attack from a specific person have no reason to carry guns. None.

If they feel that need, then I think that their fear is irrational. They should be offered help to start living a gun-free life like most other people in their community.

But who gets to decide whether a fear is rational or not?

You claim that some people have reasonable reasons to bear arms, but others don't. How does one go about demonstrating that their need is reasonable? Who gets to decide whether it is actually reasonable or not? Do you want to be the person who, upon deciding that they need to carry a firearm, is faced with convincing a government bureaucracy of that need?

And why, since most people who lawfully carry concealed firearms are hardly ever involved in crime anyway, are we even bothering to vet such responsible people?

The fact is, this question has already been decided by the courts. In 1986, hardly any states allowed concealed carry, or they were "may issue" states, where you had to get permission from someone and if they didn't like your reasons, you wouldn't get a permit. But today, most states are "shall issue". The question as to whether or not the State has the right to question your motive to lawfully carry a firearm has been all but settled:

[ileus]

63. Trouble doesn't make an appointment.

[PavePusher]

71. Awesome, can I borrow that? n/t

[Francis Marion]

200. Magnanimous elitism- whew!

How thankful that you don't want to deliver the peasants from their plague of guns.

Your views on 'ordinary people', and the rights that they 'need' or can do without, really shock an American's sensibility.

You'd parcel out rights on a 'need' basis; and yet, American Freedom should illuminate the whole land, like sunshine, with no special cases, no special rights for needy A but not for ordinary B or C. You posit an arbitrary, elitist, Marxist stratification of human rights 'to each according to their need."

Karl Marx' refrain- your 'reasonable grounds' said another way. Great- got any Lenin or Stalin insights to better the disbursement of American Freedom?

Hmmm- Maybe only literature professors NEED books. I guess it would be OK for 'ordinary people' to have a book, provided that they had a specific reading assigment from a specific person. Really...

'Untill you receive 'a specific intent from a specific person' to rob your house, you don't NEED to lock that front door. To do otherwise would be irrational, and if that's irrational you, get help to live a lock-free life, like most other people in the community.

[bluerum]

6. It is a somewhat complex addictive behavior. Kind of like techno-lust. Fear is certainly a component

in most cases, to a greater or lesser degree. But IMO
fear is not the silver bullet.

Ultimately we have to look at the 2nd amendment, how it is interpreted, and what level of sanity we want to bring to the table. And this is where we find confusion and obstruction both from pro and anti regulation advocates.

[Bragi]

9. I don't disagree we need to look at the 2nd amendment

Untilamtely yes, but before we can get to that argument, I think it would be helpful if we could "reframe" the discussion in a values-driven way, so as break out of the decades-long cycle of sterile, ideological debate on this topic.

I think the value of a free and open community able to go about its business without fear trumps the psychotic and unreasonable belief by some that they need a lethal weapon for protection against their neighbors.

[Straw Man]

21. You call it "reframing"...

...and I call it "propaganda" and "spin." You're attempting to move the discussion in a direction where you feel you can get some traction. Fair enough, but in doing so, you are creating a huge straw man by attributing motives to masses of people about whom you know nothing.

The "what are you so afraid of?" tack is not new. I don't think accusations of fear (read cowardice) and psychosis will lead to a "values-driven" discussion. If anything, they are more divisive than the ideological argument you hope to avoid.

I reject your premise. In comparing myself to my colleagues, neighbors, and friends, I don't find myself to be inordinately fearful, nor am I driven by "psychotic and unreasonable" beliefs. It strikes me that you're just looking for new ways to demonize, and this one is not new, nor is it fruitful.

[Bragi]

24. I thinik this re-framing can be quite effective

Can I say it's never been framed like this before, hell no. But I'm left wondering why it is that you (I presume being a gun-carrying type) don't answer the questions I posed.

As in:

Why are you so frightened of people that you feel you need a gun so as to threaten and/or shoot someone?

[chibajoe]

36. If I give you a valid reason as to why I am

"so frightened of people that you feel you need a gun", will you concede the point? I'll even go one better: at what point would you agree that someone who is not a representative of the government should be allowed to carry a gun for their own protection?

[Bragi]

39. My answer

If they can demonstrate that they have a specific reason to fear an attack by a specific person or group of persons, then I'd give them a permit.

If it's just a generalized and irrational fear of other people that makes them afraid, then I'd want to give them access to professional help so they can deal with their fear.

[chibajoe]

55. What if it is a generalized but not irrational fear?

What if I can articulate a reasonable suspicion that I will need a gun to defend myself, but the threat is not from a specific person or group?

[PavePusher]

74. If I had precognition, that might work.

But, since I have been a victim of crime in the past, and know when, or if, I will be in the future (See "Trouble doesn't make an appointment", posted above), I will not let you limit my options.

Unless you are willing to volunteer to guarantee my security? Obviously, if you think I am so safe, this should not be a problem for you. If you can not make such a guarantee, it is an admission that bad things do happen, and you have no control over such situations other than the steps/precautions you take to give yourself choices.

[Bragi]

101. Can you guarantee you won't shoot anyone accidentally?

Imagine that you are under attack, say by a pickpocket, and you decide to shoot your assailant.

Can you "guarantee" you won't end up shooting a bystander, or yourself?

No, you can't offer any such guarantee.

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Can you "guarantee" you won't kill somebody accidentally while driving?

(presuming you drive, of course). You can't offer any such guarantee, and more people are killed by cars each year in the US than by

guns. I guess we should make licensed drivers prove their need to drive before allowing them behind the wheel.

[Bragi]

118. Cars have a purpose other than killing people

Unlike handguns, for example.

[X_Digger]

125. Then for something not specifically designed to do so, they do a great job at it..

But I'd love to have your input here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. You don't understand: Guns kill people deader, or something like that. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. Then 99%+ of handguns must be defective, as no one is killed by them.

Maybe you could apply your energies to remedying this blatant consumer fraud.

[Marengo]

181. Purpose or intent is irrelevant from a public health perspective

Do you deny that?

[Atypical Liberal]

149. It has been demonstrated...

It has been demonstrated that CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than the police are.

You have an irrational fear of lawful CCW-permit holders.

[PavePusher]

185. No, I can't. However, since legal carriers have a far better record than police...

of hitting the right targets, you are safer with us.

Your call, of course; I beleive in free will and will not let you diminish mine.

[Abq_Sarah]

136. "I'd give them a permit"

Wow.

[Straw Man]

72. Simple answer: I'm not.

Why are you so frightened of people that you feel you need a gun so as to threaten and/or shoot someone?

I'm not. I thought I made that clear. Your assumption that fear is the only reason people own guns is faulty.

Perhaps you think your "re-framing" can be effective in achieving a goal that you have been unable to achieve by other means, namely the elimination of private ownership of firearms. But it's really just another attempt to demonize the opposition. Characterizing the opposition as somehow emotionally disturbed or imbalanced doesn't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. You're essentially just saying "You people are crazy."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

154. We'll tell you why we are so fearful just as soon as you tell us

when you intend to stop wanting to beat your wife and kids.

[PavePusher]

73. Since the "fear" you ascribe to some is a product of actual criminal action...

perhaps addressing the root cause would be your most effective course of action.

But if you want to go with your "values" concern, I value my life and property and those of my family and friends and law-abiding Citizens.

Criminals? Not so much, apparently.

[rl6214]

99. Why must every gun control advocate

resort eventually to throwing out accusations and name calling?

"the psychotic and unreasonable belief by some that they need a lethal weapon for protection against their neighbors."

So everyone that has submitted to background checks by their local law enforcement and the FBI along with fingerprinting to make sure their is no criminal history is "psychotic"?

[shadowrider]

102. Name calling and inflammatory rhetoric with no links to sources

or outlandish claims with no supporting evidence are standard operating procedure for anti's.

Get used to it.

[bluerum]

168. Sport and recreational shooters? Hunters? Legitimate self defense needs?

Indeed, fear does appear to be a component, on both sides of the table.

[loudsue]

13. This is a good, liberal idea for several reasons.

First, I am in favor of the second amendment, with regulations on the types of guns and weapons that are allowed in the hands of private citizens.

But bringing this discussion back to the problem with the extremists in this country, FEAR, is a really smart discussion to be having.

In fact, we need to be having more DISCUSSIONS on any number of issues, and not just throwing barbs at one another.

Thank you for this thread! :hi:

[shadowrider]

17. Sure. Another "I favor the 2nd amendment" BUT

argument.

:banghead:

[Bragi]

20. And thanks for your comment

I agree that unreasonable FEAR is a threat on many civil libertarian fronts. The limitations on civil rights by fearmongers running the "War on Terror" is a good example of that.

[barbtries]

18. i usually steer clear

because gun advocates won't hear what i say anyway. but your post reminded me of one i did respond to, must have been over a year ago. the post was basically the same as yours, but on the other side. "why are you afraid of guns?" or something to that effect. i wish i could remember it more precisely.
honestly if you as a gun proponent why they're afraid of their neighbors they will only be insulted. no ground will be gained. my opinion.
in all fairness i see no way at all that i will ever come around to arming myself or being okay with guns in the same houses where children live, or the legalization of guns that have no purpose other than to kill humans. etc. i am no where near the fence on the issue, so i just quit arguing.

[Bragi]

94. Understood

For the most part, you are in good company. Most liberals I know have concluded as you have, that the NRA and the big money right wing have so successfully poisoned debate on this topic that they will roll over any and all opposition. That's why I think the discussion needs reframing.

And you are quite right that the gun advocates here did eventually avoid the question about their own fear by demanding to know "why are you afraid of guns?"

Which is a bizarre question when you think of it, since guns are specifically designed to be dangerous killing tools. Only in the world of NRA-built gun culture are guns seen as benign, inanimate objects that can't possibly bring harm to anyone.

[X_Digger]

117. Do you think guns aren't 'inanimate objects'?

What makes you so irrationally terrified of a gun?

Do you think it's going to jump up and shoot itself?

(You now see, I hope, that this emotional codswallop and 'framing' goes both ways.)

[Bragi]

129. Fear of guns isn't irrational

I think your framing will fail simply because guns (unlike other objects) are made and designed to be used for one purpose -- harming and killing living things.

It isn't that difficult for most people to understand that guns are dangerous things that can and do inflict harm. Gun enthusiasts who are fearful of their neighbors may see them as benign objects, but no-one else does.

[X_Digger]

139. Is fear of steak knives irrational? Fear of cars?

The rationality or irrationality of a particular fear has more to do with the actual harm done by an object, not whatever some engineer 80-100 years ago had in mind when designing them.

There are ~300,000,000 guns in the US, and ~400,000 gun crimes committed each year. There are ~18,000 suicides and ~20,000 unintentional firearms injuries each year with guns.

Just over one-tenth of one percent of guns are used to harm anyone.

Who's being irrational again?

[Bragi]

140. Guns have no purpose other than harming living things

That's why people correctly think guns are dangerous objects to have around.

I hope someday you get the courage to live your life the way most people live -- unafraid and unarmed.

[X_Digger]

143. If that's their purpose, then why do so many fail to do so?

Honestly, you'd think sales would drop if so few actually did what you think they were designed to do.

Given how few actually do 'harm a living thing', I think it's clear who the person with an irrational fear is.

That's okay, I'm sure there's an overpaid therapist who will tell you it's all your father's fault because you saw him taking a whizz once.

[Bragi]

144. I wish you the best

I hope someday you will get the courage to go through life like everyone else -- unafraid and unharmed.

[Marengo]

182. Everyone DOES NOT have identical life experiences

Can you understand that?

MY life experiences have taught me that is a good idea to carry a firearm in some circumstances and environments.

I have my reasons, and they are based in a reality you apparently cannot grasp.

[cleanhippie]

195. Again, you are confusing your opinion with fact

[Nuclear Unicorn]

156. Freud says people who fear weapons are sexually stunted

If everyone in the world means us no harm then we can get rid of guns and the police and rape victim advocacy groups and courts and prisons and prosecutors and regulators and investigators and...


You wouldn't happen to work for Goldman-Sachs, would you?

[cleanhippie]

194. But you couldn't be more wrong.

guns (unlike other objects) are made and designed to be used for one purpose -- harming and killing living things.

that is patently false, and until you accept that, we can never have a reasonable conversation on the subject.

[cleanhippie]

193. You understand?

I think what you fail to understand is that your argument is based on emotion and not reason, and that has poisoned the debate.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. I am not afraid of my neighbors, but I do fear some strangers.

Violent crime is a reality, as much you you would like to deny that it exists. I carry a gun just in case violent crime comes to me.

[Bragi]

26. Here's the good news

You probably have more chance winning a lottery than getting into an altercation with a stranger that would require you to use lethal firepower.

So maybe if you spent the money you spend on guns and ammo and training on lottery tickets, you'd be better off.

And I suspect most of your neighbors would feel better knowing that there is one less armed and scared person out there.

[dmallind]

30. please tell me that lottery!

Because we have about 5 homicides/100k people, and many more rapes, muggings, assaults, etc every year.

Unless your definition of winning the lottery includes a dollar back or so, the odds are far far lower than those of being the victim of a violent crime where armed response is appropriate.

[X_Digger]

57. You have more risk of being a victim of violent crime than having a house fire..

In the US there are 400,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 263.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Are people who have fire extinguishers similarly afflicted with 'irrational fear'?

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Here's more good news.

You probably have more chance winning a lottery than getting into an altercation with a stranger that would require you to use lethal firepower.

So maybe if you spent the money you spend on guns and ammo and training on lottery tickets, you'd be better off.

And I suspect most of your neighbors would feel better knowing that there is one less armed and scared person out there.

Here's more good news: You also probably have more chance winning a lottery than being a victim of a crime by someone lawfully carrying a concealed firearm.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Perhaps you should take a look at the FBI statistics for violent crime.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide,... That is a lot of lottery "winners" in one year. And those are just violent crimes, such as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. It doesn't cover burglary, auto theft, etc. Remember that often violent crimes, especially rape, go unreported. If one should happen to lose the violent crime lottery, the loss can be extreme.

There were an estimated 9,320,971 property crime offenses in the Nation in 2009.

As for my neighbors, they have guns too. This is Texas.

Well, not everybody has guns. About two years ago, about 12 houses away from mine, a young couple were murdered, with knives. I am convinced that if they had kept some guns ready and available, they would still be alive.

[GreenStormCloud]

112. You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning...

...then of being illegally shot & killed by a CCW permit holder. So why are you afraid of us?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

159. If I had a gun why would I need a lottery?

I could just go to all the people who were unarmed.

:evilgrin:

[Atypical Liberal]

25. "Why are you so scared of fire?"

I've only recently followed the debate at DU on guns, but something that occurs to me is that a good way to frame the discussion for people wanting to address the plague of guns in America is to move away (temporarily) from all the 2nd amendment and legal issues, and to just politely ask gun-toting gun advocates why they are so afraid of their neighbors?

(snip)

The initial reaction of your gun-packing neighbor or coworker to this question, of course, may well be apoplexy, confusion and anger at having their timidity exposed. However, if more people keep asking them that question, maybe they will come to realize that they too can live without inordinate fear, and aspire to living a normal, gun-free life, like most people in the community.

The entire premise of your argument is that people own guns out of fear.

What you don't understand is that there are different levels of fear. There is chair-arm-gripping terror, and then there is mild concern.

I'm afraid of fire. I don't have a phobia about it, I don't have nightmares about it, and I don't spend every other minute of the day contemplating it. But I have considered that my house might burn down. It is a reasonable fear, and there are reasonable responses to it. First, I have smoke detectors in nearly every room of my home. I have a fire extinguisher. And I have homeowner's insurance. All of these things cost me money to buy, but most people would agree that these are reasonable responses to the fear of my home burning down, even though it's not likely that my house will burn down. It's considered reasonable because the cost of acquiring the tools to solve this problem are very minute compared to the cost of needing them and not having them.

Likewise I'm afraid of having a flat tire and being stranded on the road in the middle of nowhere. I don't have a phobia about it, I don't have nightmares about it, and I don't spend every other minute of the day contemplating it. But I have considered that I might one day have a flat tire, and so I purchase a membership in a roadside assistance plan, and I have a spare tire and tools in my car to use it. Having a flat tire is unlikely - I've only had one in 25 years of driving. But again, the tools to guard against the possibility are cheap compared to the consequences of being unprepared.

Likewise I'm afraid of my furnace malfunctioning and killing my family in their sleep with carbon monoxide poisoning. I don't have a phobia about it, I don't have nightmares about it, and I don't spend every other minute of the day contemplating it. But I have considered that I might one day my furnace might malfunction,, and so I purchased carbon monoxide detectors to put in our bedrooms and other strategic places. Again, the tools are cheap compared to the consequences of needing them and not having them.

Carrying a firearm is no different.

Now, are there people out there with irrational fears of assault who are carrying firearms? Of course. Just as there are a few people out there with irrational fear of germs who compulsively wash their hands over and over. But most citizens who go to the trouble to obtain concealed carry permits are good, upstanding citizens who have volunteered to burden themselves with the responsibility of carrying a firearm and so keep themselves and the people around them safe in the rare occurrence that the situation presents itself.

[Bragi]

32. None of the preventative actions you cite endanger others

None of the cited personal preventative measures you cite above involve potentially harming others, or put anyone else's life, health or well-being at risk.

Owning and potentially shooting a lethal weapon does, in fact, put other people at risk, including people who are not an intended target who you think you may want to harm or kill.

See the difference? I do.

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Neither does carrying a firearm.

None of the cited personal preventative measures you cite above involve potentially harming others, or put anyone else's life, health or well-being at risk.

Owning and potentially shooting a lethal weapon does, in fact, put other people at risk, including people who are not an intended target who you think you may want to harm or kill.

See the difference? I do.

Your assumption is that people who legally carry concealed firearms are "potentially harmful to others". They aren't. We know, from available factual data, that concealed carry permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than non-CCW-holding citizens. Additionally, the rate of revocation for CCW permits is something less than 2%. We also know that most firearm homicides are committed by people who have extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, four felonies. These people can't even obtain a CCW permit!. We further know that CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage than police officers during a shooting. All of these facts have been presented here and elsewhere before, so I won't bother going to hunt down citations for you unless you make an issue of it.

What this means is that people who go to the trouble to be fingerprinted, and have an extensive background check in order to obtain a CCW permit are hyper-law-abiding people. These aren't ordinary people who just obey the law because that is what they normally do. These are people who strictly obey the the law, jumping through additional, non-required steps to make sure they are completely compliant with the laws required for concealed carry. Unsurprisingly, these people don't tend to break other kinds of laws, either, especially not assaults or murders with a firearm.

After all your supposition that people carrying firearms out of irrational fear, I think you need to ask yourself, "Do I have an irrational fear of people who carry firearms?"

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Also....

Also, I will point out here that you have now moved the goalposts of the debate.

Your original argument was that people shouldn't carry firearms because they are doing so out of an irrational fear.

Now that I pointed out that is probably untrue, you have changed the debate now to be that carrying firearms presents a risk to those around them.

I'm assuming, then, that you don't dispute anymore that carrying a firearm must be a consequence of an irrational fear?

[PavePusher]

76. People have been killed with fire extinguishers.

Almost any object is a potentially lethal weapon.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

176. Can you guarantee my safety? That I will NEVER need .......

to defend myself or my family from harm? . Will you pay for all my expenses if I or my family are harmed?

Could I have that in writing, and notarized?

If not then I will be forced, by you, to defend myself and my family. And to use the most effective means available to do it with.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

123. When I get a new car I replace the tiny spare with a full-sized spare.

That way if I have a flat while out of town on a weekend then I am not stranding trying to get a flat fised. Just change the tire and continue with my trip. I suppose he would consider that precaution to be paranoid. But I have had a flat while miles from anywhere on a weekend. Put on a real spare and kept on going. Got it fixed the next day at home.

[dmallind]

27. Your basic assumption is false

Do people who wear seat belts live in fear of car accidents? People who have home insurance are so timid and fearful that they feel the need to protect themselves against loss due to fire or theft? Are people who lock their doors afraid of their neighbors?

All these people, like those who have guns, are simply taking precautions against unlikely but very catastrophic possibilities. Chances are your home will never burn down. Very few of us let the fear of a house fire bother them for more than a few seconds when they hear of one. Even fewer of us let that fear be so debilitating as that you assign to gun owners. But almost all of us have insurance against it, and a very large number have fire extinguishers. Some who take the risk more seriously for some reason have fire escape ladders etc. Even these people are not called scared or fearful very often unless they exhibit signs of undue fixation on the risk. Merely taking reasonable precautions against a house fire is not deemed "inordinate".

Now statistics demonstrate very clearly the risk of being a victim of a violent crime is far greater than that of a significant home fire. The majority of violent criminals are young men, likely to be a physical risk to most victims, even other young men when the attackers are more martially skilled, more prepared to use violence or in greater number than their victim. Victims who are not male and in their physical prime are likely to be overmatched. What precautions against this unlikely (but far more likely than the risks abovementioned) but potentially very damaging risk could work better than a gun? It is the significance of the risk, not its probability or how much one fears it that makes being armed a simply sensible precaution.

Safe places aren't always. Tough guys aren't always sufficiently tough, nor fast runners sufficiently fast, nor smooth talkers sufficiently smooth. Guns are not 100% effective either of course, but they add a very broad and useful level of protection to these other precautions.

The question makes sense, sense by far at least, in reverse: why are you so fearful that you are scared gun owners want to, let alone are so scared that they cannot have the chance to, "shoot other people at malls, at work, in schools, etc"? That possibility is many orders of magnitude less likely than being a victim of a crime where a gun, unfired or fired as need be but far more often the former, could save you. Why is it ok that that sliver of a risk makes you distrust and quite probably want to disarm millions of safe gun carriers ("toting" is a puerile dog-whistle by the way), but not ok, and even a grave personal failing, for those carriers to take precautions against a much more probable eventuality?

[old mark]

31. Why not just continue the typical anti gun tactics of lying, name calling and smearing?

You all seem quite happy with them up to this point...Oh, yeah, don't forget ignoring reality.


Anti's suck.

mark

[guitar man]

37. Because one night when I wasn't carrying a gun

I was shot by a criminal. Good enough?

[northoftheborder]

38. This is one of the most rational, dignified, polite discussions of this subject I have read. But...

......why can't we have reasonable polite discussions about passing laws to make it more difficult for the criminals and unstable people in our society to buy and possess weapons? Why can't we make it more difficult for the black market sale of weapons to the vicious criminals of Mexico, causing great harm to their country, and indirectly our country? Why can't we discuss these issues without the irrational hysteria of some people taking over the "conversation"?

[dmallind]

53. You obviously glossed over the multiple slurs in the op

Where gun owners are called fearful, timid, intimated people who are upset because they can't shoot other people in malls. That is neither reasonable nor polite.

Since the rest of your post at least is however I'll try to answer in kind.

We CAN make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns without taking away rights from legal owners: we could extend the NICS free of charge, encocded for privacy, to private sales (the "gun show loophole" that has naught to do with gun shows)and make all sellers keep a log of confirmation numbers that their buyers were cleared. We could actually prosecute and fully punish firearms crimes including straw purchases instead of pleading down. We can mandate effective and timely reporting by the states of those adjudicated mentally ill or committed so the NICS works better. I agree the irrational hysteria of those who are "fearful timid and intimated" by the thought of any guns in private hands detracts from this conversation.

[benEzra]

86. Thoughts...

This is one of the most rational, dignified, polite discussions of this subject I have read.

The original post is "polite" like upper-class Victorians were "polite" when they pontificated about "savages". Civil and dignified, perhaps, as long as you consider those being discussed to be biologically your inferiors, or approve of such characterization. Even for a DU gun discussion, this one has seen somewhat more than the average namecalling and insinuation of ignorance, stupidity, and irrationality.

Your own questions, however, are rational and thoughtful, and here are some thoughts in return:

Why can't we have reasonable polite discussions about passing laws to make it more difficult for the criminals and unstable people in our society to buy and possess weapons?

We have such laws; see the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the various laws that created the National Instant Check System. Of course, by definition, such laws must be applied to the criminal and mentally incompentent.

In the Tucson case, despite one of the strongest involuntary-evaluation laws in the nation, the murderer was not (in fact) so evaluated. He was barred from a college campus, shuffled around, and reportedly caused great concern for people's safety, but no one applied the existing law.

Nor, in the wake of this, do I see much effort to educate potential intervenors about following the existing law. What I do see is a bald attempt to exploit a tragedy in order to leverage long-desired new restrictions on the lawful and nonviolent, in ways that will not affect gun misuse but which will deeply harass lawful and responsible owners and shooters.

Why can't we make it more difficult for the black market sale of weapons to the vicious criminals of Mexico, causing great harm to their country, and indirectly our country?

Because the most serious weapons the cartels are using are sold only to governments and militaries (in the case of U.S.-made guns, sold only to nations approved by the U.S. Department of State, in this case primarily the government and security forces of Mexico, and are being diverted primarily from there. There are exceptions, but the military-grade arms and ordnance the cartels are using do not come from the U.S. civilian market, because they aren't available on the U.S. civilian market.

Why can't we discuss these issues without the irrational hysteria of some people taking over the "conversation"?

Well, were it not for hysteria about "assault weapons," or false claims about Title 1 civilian rifles being able to shoot down airliners, or false claims about this or that tightly controlled weapon or ammunition being legal, or the invocation of the Nuclear Bogeyman argument, or the snide characterization of serious gun owners (even Dems) as ignorant, atavistic rubes, the discussion would probably be about eighty percent shorter.

On the whole, the positions of gun control advocates would come across as more reasoned were they to treat the people they disagree with as actual human beings. Caricaturing 80 million voting-age adults as (a) cartoon villains to be hated, (b) reptile-brained incompetents who are slaves of their baser insticts, or (c) fearful Walter Mittys who can't face the world without surrogate pacifiers, doesn't strengthen the pro-gun-control argument; it undermines it in every way.

An honest attempt to comprehend existing Federal and state firearms law, the technology and nomenclature of Title 1 civilian firearms, and the demographics of their use and misuse would likewise be nice, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Civility, though, is probably achievable with effort.

[cleanhippie]

43. You can start by removing all of your false premises.

just politely ask gun-toting gun advocates why they are so afraid of their neighbors?

Where did you get that idea? I am not afraid of my neighbors. Your ignorance formed this question. Next.

The point is that most people are not so timid and fearful that they feel the need to carry lethal weapons, nor are they scared simply because they they can't shoot other people at malls, at work, in schools, whatever.

Oh, you already had an answer to your question, so it was just a strawman to begin with. Why did you ask if yo already knew the answer?



Fail.

[LiberalEsto]

45. Conservatives have larger fear centers in their brains.

I think that could explain a lot.

[shadowrider]

48. So lemme get this straight. Pro-2A Dems who support 2A are actually conservatives

because they have larger fear centers?

ROFL. That's a good one.

[lawodevolution]

47. This tactic has already been discussed by pro gun people

The best thing the anti gun side can do now is be silent for a fee decades to let things simmer down. Many people own guns just because anti gun groups pissed them off. About 1 in 3 people I know who support the 2A don't even own one gun and they are less likely to enter the debate, most non gun owning 2A supporters won't know about a gun control bill until it has passed already. This proportion of pro 2A people who don't own guns would be higher and the number of pro 2A folk would have been fewer had the war against gun owners been able to be fought with less attention from the media. Your comrads in the UK were much more successful using the incremental gun ban method, but here the response against the gun ban agenda has been so strong that at this point now it looks hopeless for your side. Now after heller the 2A is defined as the individual right to keep and bear arms, and all the attempts at missreading the 2A are now moot and only extremists continue to argue that it's a collective right. We were saying before that the 2A is a civil rights issue because gun ownership for many Americans and Mexican Americans like myself is a part of our heritage and culture and one can observe the same kind of bigotry directed against gun owners as is directed against minorities gays/lesbians, and people who enjoyed free sex at various times in our history. After McDonald vs Chicago the 2A is a civil rights/civil liberty issue. I view this as a culture war against me and my family and my heritage and I certainly feel it as anti gun people talk about gun owners in front of me without realizing i am a gunowner and call gun owners idiots, hicks, primitives, yet it is the culturally insensitive bigot who is primitive. It is a more advanced level of moral reasoning to accept and coexist with other cultures that you don't understand or fear (which leads to hate) and it is admirable when people try to learn about and accept other cultures. The longer the antis fight the sooner gun owners will realize their status as a culture is valid and deserves just as much respect as any other culture.

[Atypical Liberal]

60. Great post.

Good read, thanks.

[Bragi]

49. Life intervenes... back later... time and interest permitting /nt

[RSillsbee]

75. I'm guessing (based on post 49)

That Bragi had his/her ass handed to him/ her and won't be back

[Bragi]

85. You guessed wrong!

On the other hand, I've not much more to add at this point beyond this:

Given the polarization of debate on guns, and the absence of any agreed-upon facts, this exercise shows that it is a worthwhile tactic for opponents of gun proliferation to raise this question constantly and loudly: why are gun-carrying advocates so afraid of people that they feel a need to have at their disposal lethal instruments that will permit them to kill people at will?

Even that in a hostile, pro-gun forum such as this one, most gun advocates have trouble answering this question effectively without resorting to, at best, anecdotes where they claim that guns, allegedly thwarted attackers, or just the usual venom.

I think that an observer who isn't already indoctrinated in gun culture would quickly see the discomfort this question raises, and hopefully would cause them to ask themselves more often: "Why are some people so afraid and timid that they think they need to be able to shoot people?"

Given the big bucks expended by the NRA and the right for decades now promoting fear and gun culture, it's worth a try. In my view, anything that shifts the debate from its usual parameters merits consideration.

[shadowrider]

87. We don't have trouble answering the question. It's just our answers aren't

what you want to hear

[Bragi]

89. Then tell me why you are so afraid

that you need to have a lethal weapon at hand as you go about your daily business that will allow you to shoot people?

What alternative reason is there to understand that kind of behavior, other than fear of other people?

[shadowrider]

91. I never said I was afraid and I'm NOT. Now QUIT asking me why I am, ok? n/t

[Bragi]

97. The why do you need a gun for "self-protection"?

[derby378]

148. Why do you need MY gun in order to protect YOUR own self?

You openly talk about cajoling us into "gun-free lives" in the OP, so...

[rrneck]

104. What alternative

self defense strategy do you have against assault by an unarmed attacker that works better than a gun?

How do you know what any specific person may or may not need?

[Bragi]

105. Against an unarmed attacker?

I'd say good alternatives would be running away, or handing over your wallet, or whatever it takes to deal with the situation without any loss of life.

But my question was this: what alternative motivation is there to explain why a strange minority of people feel the need to carry lethal weapons around as they go about their daily business, other than irrational fear of other people?

[GreenStormCloud]

130. Let's take a closer look at those options and another one.

I'd say good alternatives would be running away

I'm too old. I can't run anymore. A fast walk is the best I can manage. I guess you don't care about us olde folks.

handing over your wallet

Then the thief has everything needed to steal my identity.

whatever it takes to deal with the situation without any loss of life.

You assume that the mugger won't give me an ass whipping just to help establish his street creds as being mean.


I do not own that criminal anything at all. I have the right to fight to defend myself. He is the one who is threatening violence to gain compliance, and likely using such violence often enough that people have already been hurt by him. Two .38 bullets through his heart and another in the brain will put a stop to his career as a violent predator.

[Bragi]

134. I see pointless and sad bravado on display here. /nt

[GreenStormCloud]

172. Being too old to run is "bravado"?

If you are a bit lucky, you will one day be too old to run. And you will have to trust yourself to the tender mercies of human predators. Or you may have shed your naivete by then, and decided that being armed isn't such a bad idea after all.

The peak age for getting a CHL is age 52 in Texas.

[rrneck]

138. So you don't have a solution.

Most people couldn't hope to outrun or overpower an assailant, much less more than one. So you don't have anything approaching a solution beyond some vague generalities, and yet you're quite specific about the feelings of a general group of people. You should be ashamed of such an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward the lives of others.

Until you are able to produce a viable alternative to the one settled upon by most sensible people I'm afraid you are the one doomed to apoplexy.

[X_Digger]

141. I hear sticking your finger down your throat deters rapists..

Or should she just lay there, 'handing over .. whatever it takes to deal with the situation without any loss of life' ?

[Atypical Liberal]

155. Here is a video for you Bragi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags

Here you can listen to the 911 call and testimony of a woman who was attacked and raped in her home. She had no gun. She could not run away because she had recently been injured, and was unable to do so.

So in the end, she ended up doing just what you suggested. She gave her attacker what he wanted. Or rather, he took what he wanted.

I really hope you watch and listen this video, and reconsider your position that we should just submit ourselves to whoever would abuse us.

[derby378]

214. I think that poor woman is considered collateral damage

Me, I don't think any woman should be forced to become a rape victim. It's her body, her choice, and her gun. Simple.

[guitar man]

169. To HELL with that

Law abiding citizens are under NO obligation to surrender to criminals.

[PavePusher]

179. "handing over your wallet"

Not just "No!", but "FUCK NO!"

I do not owe a criminal anything, including an easy living.

Ummm, because crime happens, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you here. Just because, in your veiw, it has always happened to others, doesn't mean we are obligated to deny ourselves defensive measures.

Are you trying to create a safe work environment for criminals? What is it that YOU fear so deeply about legal carriers?

[Atypical Liberal]

151. Tem me why YOU are so afraid

Why are you so afraid of a portion of the population that has been shown to be many times less likely than the public at large to commit crimes?

Why are you so afraid of a portion of the population that has been shown to be less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than the police?

What alternative reason is there to understand that kind of behavior, other than fear of other people?

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. Have you not noticed the many posts "promoting fear OF gun culture" here?

Not to mention the recent moral panic over large-capacity firearm magazines? Even if the NRA and the right have promoted fear, as you

assert, their opponents are certainly employing the tactic with gusto.


It's the pro-gun types, imo, that rely on statistics that show crime and murder rates are going down.


From the Prohi front we get in reply- sob stories, moralizing claims of superiority, warmed-over Freudian imagery,

and pearl-clutching Lovejoys galore....

[shadowrider]

98. I'm surprised they don't just fall down with a nasty case of the vapors n/t

[lawodevolution]

51. "2. Are you a gun-toting pro-gun advocate?". I consider this disrespectful I'd rather be called

A member of the gun owning community.

Thank you

[X_Digger]

54. aka, let's frame the debate in terms that make my opponent look bad.. no thanks.

And here I thought Frank Luntz's concepts were mainly in use by the right wing.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Am I 'afraid' of fires?

I have a first aid kit in my car. Am I 'afraid' of accidents?

I have a bottle of aspirin in my laptop bag. Am I 'afraid' of headaches?


No, I merely prefer to be prepared for a rare, yet likely dangerous encounter. I prefer to have a tool at hand that may prove useful in such a situation.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. You appear to have never been a victim of violent crime. I HAVE! N/T

[Maine_Nurse]

62. Most people in our Maine communities

are armed. Its a way of life and it is fine for us. We just hate it when people who live in other places where things are different try to pass laws that affect us.

As to your "inordinate fear" issue, well I have a bullet wound scar from a street robbery (in another state) and my wife was home and thankfully armed during a daytime home invasion. Those are increasingly common in rural areas with no police protection. Nothing irrational about wanting to be able to defend yourself.

[Remmah2]

83. Maine is a nice state.

I can't think of a single house in my community that does not have at least one firearm. Two state supreme court judges who live within a mile of me have by media definition "arsenals". We regularly bump into one another at the various local ranges.

There's never been a rape in my town, a car jacking or a home invasion. Burglaries are rare and pretty much limited to what someone steals from your garage. We also own fire extinguishers and own dogs as well. Litter and speeding are pretty much our big crimes.

You can also walk into any number of houses as well and not see any evidence of firearms, nobody walks around town with them slung over their shoulders or tucked in their belts either.

Local kids come to the range with their parents. The high school varsity rifle team is CO-ED, as are the neighboring schools.

FWIW when things go bump in the night I grab the baseball bat first and let the dogs fly out the door.

My community does not scare me. Who'd of thunk, in NY too.

[Euromutt]

64. Fallacy of presupposition (aka "Have you stopped beating your spouse?")

(see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#complexq)
By asking why pro-RKBA types "are so afraid of their neighbors," you're taking it as a given that they are even though you haven't actually presented any evidence that they are. Yes, you can point to the fact that they possess firearms, and possibly carry them outside the house, but then you're just begging the question (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html).

Your basic premise is also inherently self-contradicting: you argue that gun owners (and vocal RKBA advocates in particular) have an "inordinate fear of others" that is, you imply, not based in reality. At the same time, you argue that we are suffering from a "plague of guns," which I can only assume is expressed in assaultive and negligent shootings. Somebody is committing those shootings; it's not the guns acting of their own volition. In short, your criticism of gun owners that they are needlessly fearful of their fellow citizens is motivated by a fear of gun owners. See the contradiction there?

Your point about "most people" not being "scared simply because they they can't shoot other people at malls, at work, in schools, whatever" is particularly inaptly chosen, since mass killings have occurred in all three environments you listed. Evidently, one cannot trust everyone in such places to not form a threat to one's physical well-being.

In the interim, the reality of the matter is that, while levels of violent crime are nowhere near what they were during the 1970s, 1980s and the first half of the 1990s (even though levels of legal private firearms ownership have increased markedly since then), we still have something in the order of one and a half million "serious violent crimes" committed in the United States annually (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/4meastab.cfm). It might be noted in passing that 8% of those serious violent crimes were committed by an offender using a gun (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43). Somebody is committing those offenses, and while you may choose to regard those people as your "neighbors," I feel no such obligation.

To be perfectly frank, after working for over three years in one of the UN tribunals for serious violations of international humanitarian law, I have very little faith in the goodness supposedly inherent in mankind. Homo homini lupus and all that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus), or at least some homines. To paraphrase GreenStormCloud earlier in this thread, I'm not particularly afraid of my neighbors (that is, the people who live on my street, whom I know or at least wave to and get along with) but I don't discount the possibility that there are some people out there who are capable of extremely nasty things.

Let me recount to you the two events that were watershed moments in turning me from a gun control advocate to an RKBA advocate.

The first was reading about the Supreme Court's ruling in Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales. Ms. Gonzales had sued the City of Castle Rock after her estranged husband kidnapped and murdered their three daughters, and Castle Rock PD sat on their hands throughout, in violation of Colorado state law and a court order, both of which instructed law enforcement to take all necessary measures upon receiving information that a domestic restraining order had been violated (as had happened the moment Simon Gonzales approached the three girls). The Supreme Court's ruling that government could not be held liable for failing to make so much as a good faith effort to protect an individual citizen, even if it broke the law in doing so, clinched the issue for me. I learned in Political Science 101 that authority is the legitimate exercise of power, and to be legitimate, power has to be coupled to responsibility. When government refuses to take any measure of responsibility for protecting the individual citizen, or liability for failing to do so, it thereby abdicates any authority to deprive the individual citizen of the means to protect himself.

The second was when the Puget Sound area was hit by massive storm in December 2006, resulting in widespread power outages. I remember sitting huddled in the candle-lit living room with my wife and eight month-old son, while the wind and rain lashed at the house and the emergency services roared past on the arterial at end of the street (I stepped out onto the porch periodically to smoke), and I realized that if some bunch of opportunistically minded scum decided to exploit the situation by carrying out some home invasions, it would at best be hours before our 45-man local police department got round to assisting us.

Actually, I should factor in another element, which is that while the people in my neighborhood are lovely, the people in the next neighborhood over are remarkably nonchalant about the city's leash laws. My wife's been bitten in the ass by a German shepherd with a territory complex, and my son (when he was just shy of three years) and I ran into a dog that threatened him two streets over from our house. Frankly, half the reason I carry weapons is because of the fucking loose dogs; I carry pepper spray, both for human and canine assailants, and a handgun in case the pepper spray fails to achieve the desired result.

To be perfectly blunt, when it comes to the choice of protecting my child or gaining your approval, my child wins every time.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. To put a finer point on it....

Your basic premise is also inherently self-contradicting: you argue that gun owners (and vocal RKBA advocates in particular) have an "inordinate fear of others" that is, you imply, not based in reality. At the same time, you argue that we are suffering from a "plague of guns," which I can only assume is expressed in assaultive and negligent shootings. Somebody is committing those shootings; it's not the guns acting of their own volition. In short, your criticism of gun owners that they are needlessly fearful of their fellow citizens is motivated by a fear of gun owners. See the contradiction there?

This is a fantastic point, and I think it needs to be made sharper, if I may:

It is truly a glaring contradiction that people wish to restrict firearm ownership out of fear of crimes committed with firearms, but at the same time they look at people who carry firearms in response to the same fear as irrational.

[RSillsbee]

65. Of course, if you start from the assumption that your (debate) opponent

is "timid" and "fearful" it's quite likely that you are going to get a hostile response.

[slackmaster]

66. You've started with a false premise ("plague of guns"), used it to support a strawman ("afraid...

...of their neighbors...").

Your framework so far off track, there really isn't any point in trying to pursue a discussion from it.

But I'll try to reset it to something more useful:

I buy guns both for my own amusement and as financial investments.

The initial reaction of your gun-packing neighbor or coworker to this question, of course, may well be apoplexy, confusion and anger at having their timidity exposed. However, if more people keep asking them that question, maybe they will come to realize that they too can live without inordinate fear, and aspire to living a normal, gun-free life, like most people in the community.

You have concluded with a prejudice-based incorrect assumption, and poisoned the well by equating "normal" with "gun-free".

Your OP is full of fallacies, and does nothing IMO but expose your own personal bias and ignorance.

[rrneck]

67. What makrs you think

insulting people is an "effective tactic" toward a fruitful discussion?

Please note that all the people YOU seem to fear have shown much more courtesy than you.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. False equivalency.

I carry a flaslight, not because I am afraid of the dark, but because it is a useful tool for seeing in the dark.
I carry a CPR mask, not because I am afraid of people in cardiac arrest, but because it is a useful tool for preserving human life.
I carry a First Aid kit, not because i am afraid of other people bleeding, but because it is a useful tool for preserving their well-being, and possibly their life.
I carry a firearm, not because I live in fear, but because it is a useful tool I may need to preserve human life.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. The OP is an example of "telepsychology"

i.e. the purported diagnosis of the mental states of persons the poster does not know and has never met.

Should be located just after phrenology and scrying in a list of frauds.

[Bragi]

88. Hah!

If gun toters aren't irrationally afraid of people, then what alternative explanation is there to explain why someone feels the need to be able to shoot people as they go about their routine daily business?

[X_Digger]

92. I carry a gun because a cop's too heavy.

20 per 1,000 people were the victim of violent crime (attempted or completed) in 2007. (27 per 1,000 for some groups like African Americans.)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf

That's 1 in 50. (1 in 37 for African Americans.)

I choose to have the most effective means of potentially stopping a violent crime.

I also carry a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in my car.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, and smoke alarms in every bedroom.

I have carbon monoxide detectors at floor level in every bedroom.


I choose to be prepared for many rare, yet potentially life-threatening scenarios.

You get to make your own choices.

[Bragi]

95. I choose not to live in fear of others

I see that pickpockets are listed among the violent criminals.

So would you shoot a pickpocket if they victimized you, or do you think there might be better alternatives?

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Of course not. A pickpocket is not an existential threat. Armed robbers *are* a threat.

By all means, feel free to believe someone trying to forcibly assault or rob you won't escalate to attempted murder or rape.

It's your choice, and it may not happen to you. However, it does happen, even to compliant victims.




I see no reason to give even a strongarm robber the benefit of the doubt. Hands and feet kill more people each year than

the dreaded high capacity rifles do.

[X_Digger]

110. No, we can leave out the 194,000 pick pockets, etc.. doesn't change the odds appreciably.

Gee, that went from 5.4M to 5.2M.. little change in the odds.

You can choose not to be prepared, and hope that you are one of the 49.

Your choice.

So would you shoot a pickpocket if they victimized you, or do you think there might be better alternatives?

What gave you the idea that I would shoot a pickpocket?

[GreenStormCloud]

135. Minimizing the crime threatened. We see antis do that all the time.

We frequent see antis attempt to downgrade the crime to something trivial in an attempt to pooh-pooh self defense. There was a thread about an elderly man who was being beaten by a young thug and the anti called it a parking lot scuffle.

In another thread here a threatened strong-arm robbery was called agressive panhandling.

Antis want to believe that there is never any need to lethal self-defense and that human predators are just misunderstood innocents.

[Bragi]

137. No, we just have a sense of proportion

I hope someday you get the courage to go through life like most people do -- unafraid and unarmed.

[beevul]

187. A sense or proportion?

"No, we just have a sense of proportion"

Apply your "sense of proportion" to the fact that there are 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million+ people, and yet 15 thousand gun homicides.


What does your "sense of proportion" say about that?

[Atypical Liberal]

160. You say "I choose not to live in fear of others"

You say, "I choose not to live in fear of others", yet you are clearly living in fear of people who legally carry concealed weapons, in spite of the fact that they are far less likely to commit crimes than non-CCW permit holders, and less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than the police.

Why is that?

[oneshooter]

177. I carry a gun because.........

It don't eat near as many donuts as a cop!







Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. Note that this was asked by a free speech toter.

Why are some people irrationally afraid of people carrying guns?

Criminals aside, those that carry legally are less likely to be involved in crime on average than the poulation as a whole.

And no, we don't have to demonstrate need....

[Straw Man]

142. Piling on the pejoratives.

Let's see... "strange minority," "irrational fear," "fear mongering," "psychotic and unreasonable belief," etc. Was this really supposed to be an attempt at constructive dialogue with gun owners? If so, I suggest that your rhetorical strategy could use some "re-framing."

You apparently have convinced yourself that your fear meme is a valid one, and nothing can convince you otherwise. I can only offer my own experience.

I don't carry on a daily basis. There are times when I feel that it is warranted, and I use my best judgment in determining when that is. I firmly believe that, in the absence of any history of criminal behavior or mental illness, each individual should be allowed to make that determination for himself or herself. I would not make that determination for anyone else, nor would I consider anyone else qualified to make it for me.

I am not in a state of fear when I'm not carrying, nor am I "emboldened" (another popular meme) when I am carrying. I realize that is statistically unlikely that I will need to use a firearm in my own defense, and I certainly have no desire to ever shoot anyone. I am fully aware that, regardless of justification, there would be severe legal, moral, and emotional ramifications to such an act. Nevertheless, I would do it if necessary in defense of my life or the lives of my loved ones.

I don't expect that you will ever really understand that. So feel free to proceed with the vilification, and call it "re-framing" if it makes you feel better.

[Bragi]

152. I think my OP was clear

I think the language in my OP makes it clear that my goal here is to explore and test a rhetorical approach for people opposed to the prevailing pro-gun culture, an approach that will help weaken/undermine the case being put forward by pro-gun advocates.

I'd like to constructively debate the matter, of course, but the overwhelming dominance of the well-funded NRA and the right-wing in this discussion at present makes constructive debate unlikely, if not impossible.

In this regard, I'm feeling good about this test meme. I think it's got potential. It can shift discussion away from the usual talking points that just lead to the sterile and inflammatory debate which is now dominated by the NRA and their supporters.

I hope that someday you and all people who now carry guns for "personal protection" will no longer be afraid to live life like most other people -- unarmed and unafraid.

[X_Digger]

157. If this was a test, sign up for summer school now.

My catholic mother-in-law does better emotional twaddle than this. "B-" for effort, though.

[rrneck]

170. Got that solution yet?

Or are you still satisfied with insulting people who mean you no harm from the
safety of your blinkered ideology?

[Straw Man]

190. So... just another propagandist?

No interest in debating issues, only more slurs, repeated ad absurdum? Why am I surprised?

Certainly you're not so naive as to believe that this meme will make any headway with gun owners. I can only presume you think it will sway the undecided toward supporting gun control efforts. It hasn't had much success around here when it pops up, which is fairly frequently.

I hope that someday you and all people who now carry guns for "personal protection" will no longer be afraid to live life like most other people -- unarmed and unafraid.

And I hope that someday you will lose your fear of inanimate objects and learn to respect the rights of others.

[Marengo]

184. "Toters" eh? Yeah, you're real interested in respectful debate.

Please do us a favor and reach for a thesaurus. Reading the same propogandist vocabulary ad nauseum is becoming, well, nauseating.

[cleanhippie]

196. Each and every one of your posts is disingenuous bullhocky

How many times are you going to accuse people you have never met of having psychological problems. Project much?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. More like teletubby psychology n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. This entire thread has become a demand to prove a negative, so here's one for the OP:

How can you guarantee that you're not a visitor from Zeta Reticulii?

TIA!

[Callisto32]

133. Asked and answered.

Over, and over, and over, and over.

[derby378]

146. Since your first sentence includes the phrase "the plague of guns," I assume...

...you consider guns some sort of disease instead of a Constitutional right. That means the rest of your post can be disposed of easily, because you're approaching the question of gun ownership with faulty vision.

[Bragi]

165. I consider the proliferation of guns to be a public health disaster /nt

[DissedByBush]

150. They don't fear exactly because they're packing

They would be scared if they weren't.

[Bragi]

153. They wouldn't be packing if they weren't afraid

Most people don't see the need to carry lethal weapons as they go about their daily business.

It saddens me that some people are so fearful that they can't live like most people do -- unafraid and unarmed.

[DissedByBush]

161. Are police afraid?

They don't usually look scared.

[Bragi]

163. We pay and empower them "to serve and protect"

In this context, it's the amateurs and wannabees that concern me, not the professionals.

[X_Digger]

167. Yet they can't be held responsible for not doing so..

Funny, that.

[DissedByBush]

189. And citizens are expected to protect themselves

You don't they should have equivalent tools with which to do so?

[Euromutt]

199. Whatever point you might have had has devolved into a circular argument

"People who carry a gun do so because they're afraid. We know they're afraid because they carry a gun."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#circulus

Maybe the reaction of "apoplexy, confusion and anger" you supposedly encounter isn't the result of "having their timidity exposed" but rather because your argument is so laden with fallacies that the central Greece appears to be undergoing a minor earthquake from the force of Aristotle and Euclid spinning in their graves.

[beevul]

162. What about me? Which of your little molds do I fit in?

"gun-toting pro-gun advocate"

I don't carry, and have no wish to.

I do advocate that it be allowed though.

Oh, and I don't have any neighbors.


I must be afraid...somehow...right? :eyes:

[Bragi]

164. You don't carry?

If so, then I have no concern about you shooting me intentionally or accidentally, and presume you are living your life like most people -- unarmed and unafraid.

[beevul]

166. No, I don't carry.

But I do advocate that people be allowed to.

[oneshooter]

180. Why are you concerned about any of us shooting you?

Just stay in Canada and have a happy life.

If you want to visit the US, by all means do so. Just keep YOUR policies in Canada.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

188. Just the latest DUer from north of the border lecturing us Yanks on how we

should live.

"The dogs bark, the winds blow, and the great caravan moves on"

[Bragi]

201. I have family in the U.S

I hate to see them endangered by the scared few who think they aren't safe anywhere unless they have a lethal weapon in their possession that they can use to threaten or harm others.

I want reach out and help gun carriers overcome their fears, and to learn to live happily like everyone else -- unarmed and unafraid.

[oneshooter]

212. What part of the US? Some states are as anti-freedom as you are. n/t

[derby378]

215. Pithy catchphrases will not keep your family safe

Granted, a gun is no guarantee that they'll be safe, either. But I will not deny your folks the right to defend themselves or each other if that need should arise.

[Euromutt]

217. I have some suggested reading for you, Bragi, namely the 2004-2005 ICVS

Or more precisely, the report based on the findings of the 2004-2005 International Criminal Victims Survey (ICVS): http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf

In particular, I would direct your attention to chapter 11, "Fear of Crime" (pp.127-133). You'll find that plenty of people in countries with tight laws regarding private firearms ownership actually are afraid of being burgled or being on the streets at night. Ergo, there is no correlation between being "unarmed" and being "unafraid." In fact, two of the three countries with the lowest level of respondents being afraid of their houses being burgled were the United States and Finland, both of which rank pretty highly in levels of gun ownership. Similarly, regarding the percentage of respondents feeling "a bit unsafe" or "very unsafe" on the street after dark, the United States and Finland came in at the lower end of the table, whereas Luxembourg and Japan came in quite high, despite both countries having stringent gun laws. Note that I'm not claiming a negative correlation between levels of gun ownership and levels of fear (the Netherlands, with pretty tight gun laws, scores low on both tables, for example), but rather, that not owning a gun does not make one unafraid.

Frankly, what you're advocating (based on entirely incorrect premises) is denialism as a survival tactic, and that's a pretty shitty idea. No gazelle ever lived to old age by pretending hyenas didn't exist.

[sylvi]

171. What is the greater mystery to me

is why you would bring this same trite, shopworn argument that the weapon carrier is "irrationally afraid" into this forum and present it as some new-and-improved framing of the argument. It's not like it's something no one here has considered or discussed a thousand times before.

It's about as meaningful and productive as the "small penis" ploy and about as likely to influence anyone. The fact that you coyly refer to it as something that "takes the discussion to a new and more constructive level", when it is in fact a shallow and poorly disguised ad hominem, indicates to me you're more interested in flamebait than discussion.

[spin]

173. Your basic assumption is that people who carry firearms in public ...

are afraid of their neighbors.

I've often noticed that those who oppose carrying concealed firearms and the Second Amendment are people who believe that they are more intelligent and therefore better than those who do carry and support RKBA.

We might both be wrong.

I have a concealed weapons permit and I know many people who also legally carry in public. I can't think of one person with a carry permit that ever appeared to me to live in fear of his neighbors. Some people I know who have carry permits live in high crime areas and probably have good reason to carry. In such cases, it's not a matter of fear but commonsense. Many of these people I know who carry are ex-police or have a military background. I never knew anyone who had a permit and acted like he was Rambo.

You state:

The initial reaction of your gun-packing neighbor or coworker to this question, of course, may well be apoplexy, confusion and anger at having their timidity exposed. However, if more people keep asking them that question, maybe they will come to realize that they too can live without inordinate fear, and aspire to living a normal, gun-free life, like most people in the community.

Most of the people I know with permits would merely laugh at you. They probably would merely say that they really didn't care what you think. You will not change their mind and they will not change yours.

[NewMoonTherian]

183. This is an interesting question.

I certainly don't fear my neighbors, or the average person. However, my experiences have shown me that there is a small chance that I, or someone I care for, will become the target of violence. I've taken what I feel are responsible steps to help protect myself in that event. I equate it with the practice of carrying insurance. It doesn't interfere with my daily life, and it doesn't endanger or inconvenience anyone else. I took an assessment of the risks and potential benefits, and made the decision I feel is best.

I think that, if you'll take the initiative and get to know a few toters personally, you'll see their motivations aren't rooted in any irrational fear or distrust of their fellow man.

[aikoaiko]

186. The same question can be asked of anti=gun advocates?

Why do you fear law abiding residents having guns?

[krispos42]

191. Same reason I wear a seatbelt

Statistically speaking, on any given day or in any given month, I'll never need it.


But I don't get on a soap box and say to people that wear them "What are you afraid of? How can we be safe on the highways if you drive around in a constant state of terror? Why are you such a coward?"






Speaking of any given month... June 21, 2010.





I've had two cars totaled from underneath me, thankfully with only two bruises and some sore neck muscles in all.

I always always always wear a seat belt, not out of fear or of law, but because it's a damn good idea in case the shit hits the fan.

And if you're wondering, no, I don't carry a concealed pistol. Although I might get a concealed pistol permit simply because the Connecticut General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, decided to make it against the law to remove a pistol from the four walls of your house unless you have a pistol permit or concealed pistol permit. So I can't even go practice without a permit!

[Ready4Change]

203. An airbag is a better analogy.

An airbag is a potential danger to you and your passengers, and possibly to first responders (in an accident that doesn't cause them to bet set off.) It is only safe when activated if you are in the correct position, ie: in your seat and wearing a seat belt. In nearly all other cases it increases risk.

A number of people have been killed by airbags. Fire, police and EMTs have to have additional training to recognize and deal with the increased risk these pose.

Air bags are also a source of criminal activity. A large number of car thefts are conducted mostly to supply a black market for replacement air bags, which can cost several thousand dollars each.

Do you feel you must have an air bag? Why? Do you really need one (or more) to be safe? The vast majority of the times you drive a car the airbag does absolutely nothing. And, statistically, just wearing a seat belt does more to enhance your safety, while posing zero risk to first responders. Air bags make your car MUCH more expensive, their weight decreases your fuel efficiency, and they makes your car more attractive to thieves.

Yes, you do need an airbag. Why? Because, as a responsible car owner, you've kept your air bag properly maintained. As a well trained driver, you wear your seat belt, which keeps you in the correct position for the air bag to work properly. And you insist that your passengers do the same. You know that, if there should be an accident, a fireman won't magically appear to keep your head from smashing into your steering wheel, or your passengers heads from being crushed by your cars B pillars. Only an air bag is right there, right when it's needed, in that hopefully rare circumstance when only an airbag can save the lives of you and your loved ones. And you trust that, in 3 or 5 or 15 minutes, when first responders DO arrive, that they will have the training necessary to avoid the dangers posed by any air bags in your car that weren't activated by the accident.

[shadowrider]

205. An airbag is a better analogy.

An airbag is a potential danger to you and your passengers, and possibly to first responders (in an accident that doesn't cause them to bet set off.) It is only safe when activated if you are in the correct position, ie: in your seat and wearing a seat belt. In nearly all other cases it increases risk.

A number of people have been killed by airbags. Fire, police and EMTs have to have additional training to recognize and deal with the increased risk these pose.

Dude, you accurately described my ex-wife in those sentences. MY former airbag.

[Ready4Change]

209. Oh SOOO no comment.

:) Totally not going there!

[Kennah]

208. An airbag is a lousy analogy

Whenever I get in a vehicle, I don't a choice as to whether I use the airbag or not. Either the vehicle has it or it does not.

The seatbelt is optional. Yes, there are laws that say you must use a seatbelt, but I've worn a seatbelt ever since I started driving in 1984. When it was not the law one had to use a seatbelt, I didn't wear a seatbelt because I was expecting to get into a traffic accident. Putting on a seatbelt does not contribute to people taking greater risks and causing more traffic accidents.

I wear a seatbelt for the same reason I carry a concealed handgun.

[SlipperySlope]

197. I'm guessing you misjudged the currents on DU

I'm curious if before you posted this you were aware of the substantial minority on DU who support the right to own firearms?

The bottom line to me is that gun control is not a progressive issue. It has nothing to do with social equality or restructuring our society. The Democratic party needs to move beyond knee-jerk calls for further gun control, particularly when all those calls do is alienate more and more voters.

Regarding your question: it is so narrowly framed it is difficult to answer. Gun owners do not generally own guns out of fear of their neighbors. That fact negates your entire line of questioning.

I'm sorry, I'm sure you meant well, but this issue is far more complicated then your approach seems to appreciate. Additionally, calling for more gun control is less and less a "Democratic" position and more and more a "fringe" position.

Edit: Nevermind Bragi. I initially took your question at face value and assumed you asked it in good faith. After reading your insulting responses to other DUers I realize that you didn't post to engage in dialogue, but you are pushing your agenda instead.

[Francis Marion]

198. Mayberry- a pleasant, fictional town

So people own guns because they're unbalanced- they're 'scared' of their neighbors.
With all due respect, might you be afraid of your neighbors?
You're not? Really- got a lock on that front door? Use it?

Got a lock on your car door? Use it? Why? Afraid of the neighbors?

Bank account? Why not keep all the cash at home, unless you're afraid the neighbors will get it?

It's just prudent to protect self, home, and family. Guns are like front door locks- a particularly useful security tool: a deterrent, and if need be, a weapon. And that's excluding the other 99.99997% of The Average Gun's time spent shooting targets and peaceably minding its own business.

Most gun ownes I know don't care about running around in public with a gun: they want Amendment 2 rights to be respected. Not infringed. Left the hell alone, same as all of our other rights.

It's trite to ascribe motives of fear, mistrust, et cetera to persons who choose to utilize guns for protection, or any other lawful purpose.

Your 'plague of guns' is our Bill of Rights. Not much to negotiate.

People don't need to apologize for, explain, or justify the exercise of their rights.

Of course, a person could prove that the world is a nice place; leave the keys in the ignition, unhinge that front door, fill the house with cash and throw away the steak knives.

[MicaelS]

202. As a Canadian, what business of yours is it if Americans CCW?

Why is even a concern of yours? These laws are in our country, not yours.

[friendly_iconoclast]

204. Claim (without presenting proof) they're afraid. Then repeat the claim whenever possible.

That's about it, no?

[Katya Mullethov]

210. I am starting to believe it

Give it a chance .

[east texas lib]

211. This is one of the finest examples of projecting personal phobias onto others ever...

I salute you. See you at the range!;-)

[knowone]

213. Your entire argument is premised on a Logical Fallacy

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the logical fallacy formally known as "the Complex Question Fallacy". Your entire argument is undercut by the fact that you are asking a loaded question...

[mvccd1000]

216. Question: "Why are you so afraid of your neighbors?" Answer:...

Question: "Why are you so afraid of your neighbors?"
Answer: "I'm not."
Question: "Then why are you carrying a gun?"
Answer: "I'm not always in my neighborhood."

Easy, huh? :)