I've often heard this line in various forms, most recently in a WallStreet Journal article that's generally sympathetic to gun owners: "Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun."
The striking thing is that this statement is almost certainly false: I strongly suspect that anyone growing up even in a very insular corner of Seattle did know people who owned guns. He just didn't know that he knew them, because they weren't telling, and one of the reasons they weren't telling was precisely the casual assumption that of course no-one in their circle would ever do such a thing.
This is a common phenomenon (labeled "preference falsification" by Timur Kuran when it has to do with attitudes rather than behavior). If a particular practice is socially frowned on by some, then the substantial minority -- or sometimes even a majority -- that engages in it may hide its behavior, leading everyone to dramatically underestimate the prevalence of the practice. So you can have 20% of the population owning guns (much less than the national average, but perhaps it was the average in the author's Seattle circle), but this 20% actual prevalence would look like a 2% prevalence or even a zero prevalence.
The quote reminds me of Justice Powell's famous line "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual," said at the time Justice Powell was considering his vote in the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) gay sex case. (See John C. Jeffries, Jr.'s biography.) Powell had by then had several gay clerks, and apparently said the statement to a clerk who was himself in fact gay. Powell's belief that he'd never met a homosexual was much like some people's belief that they didn't know anyone who owned a gun.
This also helps show the wisdom of many gay rights activists' view that coming out to friends and family is itself a potent political action. It's much harder to demonize that which your friends happily do than that which no-one you know would ever dream of doing. (Still possible to criticize it, of course, but harder to demonize it.) Gun owners in relatively non-gun-owning circles -- especially the well-liked and good-looking gun owners -- should do the same.
The article's bottom line, by the way, is that surveys report that gun owners aren't particularly likely to be "bitter," but are actually a little more likely to be happy than non-gun-owners; as I said, this is not an anti-gun article. Moreover, the author might even, on reflection, realize the error of his statement, especially given his consciousness of "how little some Americans know about their neighbors"; he might have actually meant to say "I knew nobody whom I knew to have owned a gun." But the way he put it still strikes me as telling.
Not owning one, but everyone believing that you do gives a bit of protection itself.
(What may, in some cases, be more common is not wanting to say that one hunts, when hunting is thought to be cruel, or to say that one thinks that he or she is likely to be able to protect his or her family with a gun since this is of dubious validity in most cases.)
But you never know:http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88cgunclub.phtml
Sweet! I'm definitely going to mention it to all of my son's friends' parents. I don't want their monstrous offspring in my house anyway.
But seriously, I don't want it generally known that there are guns in my house, not because I fear social stigma, but because of the possibility of theft.
"Everyone I know owns a gun."
Is this also preference falsification? Because I'm reasonably sure I do know people who don't own guns, but growing up in Arkansas you rarely run into any of the "guns are evil" people.
Sounds like somethings absurd enough for him to say.
Ahhh, the good old days, when that kind of information wasn't everybody's business.
TMI
I don't know, Clayton seems awful bitter. And a good number of the gun owners who post on this site display an unhealthy fear of crime and strangers that seems just plain unhealthy.
It's amazing the absurd statements, and obvious lies, law professors can get away with in class. No wonder when they become bloggers they get all bent out of shape when they are called on their bullshit.
Oh really? Clayton revealed he would feel uncomfortable going to DC for the SC hearing if he couldn't be armed. There are a number of people who post on this site who apparently think it is foolish and puts them at great personal risk to walk the streets of any major city without being armed. That kind of paranoia is ridiculous.
At that time there were only a few women who were competitive in pistol and this was a good way for an athlete to make an international team. I know of several women who eventually gave up the sport due to peer pressure or to having to live a double life. One woman told me she had to make sure that the NRA magazines were always out of sight - at that time you had to be a member of the NRA to compete on an international level.
On the other hand, I also know several women who gave up competition shooting because their husbands became upset when they did well. This was a completely different dynamic, of course.
I should go on the record first as saying that I'm both neutral and pretty apathetic on the gun question, but I have to note the irony in the apparently prevalent concern that owning a device a primary purpose of which is often cited as the deterrence of or protection against crime in the home may actually make one's home a target for crime. Isn't that a bit self-defeating?
Only one of these people is training for a law enforcement position. The others just like having them around.
Carrying a gun makes one the opposite of paranoid ( or in my case being surrounded by friends who all carry ). It makes you comfortable and feel safe, even when in dangerous areas of the city.
Oy vey. They protect me when I'm in the home, but I can't stay in my home 24/7, and I can't have all my guns on my person 24/7.
I don't widely advertise my ownership of any of my other expensive possessions, either. Is it "self-defeating" to own rare books and flat-screen TVs?
Prof. Reynolds quote seems accurate to me. Just why "hawkins" thinks an accurate observation is "absurd" strikes me as, well, absurd. There are many people with a puerile and irrational fear of guns. They are a large part of the faculties and students in higher education. What is absurd is the irrational fear.
Thomas accuses Prof. Reynolds of being a liar on what evidence? Was he there? Why the ad hominem in the first place?
Clayton seems to me more rational than J.F. Thomas. The incidence of assault and murder in DC is sky high, especially when compared to where Clayton lives. It seems to me than Clayton is rationally assessing the risk.
In light of the tenor of the argument here, I will close with a quote attributed to Freud:
Prof. Reynolds quote seems accurate to me. Just why "hawkins" thinks an accurate observation is "absurd" strikes me as, well, absurd. There are many people with a puerile and irrational fear of guns. They are a large part of the faculties and students in higher education. What is absurd is the irrational fear.
Thomas accuses Prof. Reynolds of being a liar on what evidence? Was he there? Why the ad hominem in the first place?
Clayton seems to me more rational than J.F. Thomas. The incidence of assault and murder in DC is sky high, especially when compared to where Clayton lives. It seems to me than Clayton is rationally assessing the risk.
In light of the tenor of the argument here, I will close with a quote attributed to Freud:
On the other hand: If a gay person says the equivalent, it's called "Flaunting his sexual preference right in our faces."
See? So that's the distinction. Write it down.
So is a persistent denial of reality.
<b>Deadly Weekend Sees 37 Shot, 2 stabbed, 7 Dead, in a single major city</b>
CHICAGO (CBS April 21, 2008) ― Five people were shot overnight in what capped off a very violent weekend here in Chicago.
In all, at least 37 people were shot, two were stabbed and at least seven people are dead.
CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports that Chicago police say that warmer weather means more opportunities for violent crime, so they are stepping up patrols and focusing their efforts on targeting gang leaders.
Most recently, A 25-year old man died after a gunman shot him in the chest as he stood with a friend in the 800 block of South Karlov at about 12:30 a.m. Monday. Police say the unidentified man was shot in the chest and the suspect ran away.
Also, two shooting victims drove themselves to Mount Sinai Hospital at about 11:30 p.m. Sunday. A 31-year-old man was critically injured and a 32-year-old woman was shot in the arm and stomach when a gunman walked up to their van and opened fire, in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side.
[Chicago has the <b>most restrictive ban</b> on handguns outside the District of Columbia. Cook county bans "assault weapons" and "zones-out" licensed gun shops. That is backed up by state laws requiring gun owner registration, waiting periods, background checks, a total prohibition on carrying firearms in public, etc. <b>None of it deters murderers or crime/drug gangs in the slightest.</b>]
Police admit that three dozen shootings in one weekend is a lot, but through the end of March in Chicago, violent crime was down.
On Friday, <b>15</b> people were shot — four fatally — between noon Friday and midnight Saturday, police said.
* * *
The violence continued Saturday, as <b>13</b> more people were shot — two fatally.
* * *
On Sunday, police reported <b>9</b> people were shot in six separate shootings — one of which was fatal — and a stabbing that critically injured two people.
* * *
No one has been charged in any of the shootings except for the police involved incident, where Teague was charged with murder and attempted murder, police said early Monday. Flournoy, of Des Plaines, was charged in the stabbing.
Detectives from all areas of the city, Harrison, Calumet, Wentworth and Grand Central are investigating the shootings and Belmont Area detectives probed the stabbings.
The STNG Wire contributed to this report.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Umm... maybe Cramer was saying that rhetorically, or hyperbolically? Like, I never even thought to take this literally. JFT, however, may assume that people like Cramer are loonies who think that you have to be armed to walk from Union Station past the Senate buildings to the Supreme Court, surrounded mostly by tourits and Senate staffers whom he considers putatively dangerous.
To propund this seriously (I grant that he may be saying this for argumentative or rhetorical effect) says more about him than about Cramer. To generalize to other gun owners says even more about him-- either about his contact with reality or about his honesty.
Fixed to remove liberal sarcasm.
I'm still trying to organize a pistol shooting event for the summer clerks. The skeet shooting event for clients was a big success.
Not every gun has a purpose of self defense. I have a valuable rifle that is very good for shooting at a piece of paper 200 yards away, but would not be very good for hunting, and would be a crummy tool for self defense.
Get back to us when the unit cost for your wine rises to the unit cost of your aftershave.
Are you trying to link the crime rate in Chicago to the inability of people to protect themselves. Here in New Orleans (with a population of about 1/10th that of Chicago), we had 5 murders (all shootings) between Thursday and Saturday night. Louisiana is a shall issue state yet New Orleans had, by far, the highest murder rate in the country last year, and we have had 57 murders so far this year. We also have had a rash of armed robberies (over 60 in the French Quarter alone).
Call me foolish that I wander the streets of New Orleans unarmed and don't even own a gun. But hey, that's me--just a reckless risk taker.
Thomas accuses Prof. Reynolds of being a liar on what evidence? Was he there? Why the ad hominem in the first place
Because although I am not the most anti-gun person around (in spite of what you may believe), I certainly now hardcore anti-gun people. And it is a ridiculous assertion that Yale law students are going to react in such a way to someone who says they have fired a gun. Maybe he got that reaction out of some tree-hugging granola girl as he recounted some hunting adventure. But to say that he told "some" students and their reaction was revulsion is just bullshit.
And I just love how you all impute that I am some kind of pathetic, scared wimp just because I don't see the need to own a gun.
Thanks, J.F. Thomas! I had always wondered why I bought that gun. Now I know it was just my unhealthy paranoia. How absurd of me to think otherwise!
This is merely prudent. As I understand Dr. Kellermann's articles published by the New England Journal of
CriminologyMedicine, the mere possession of a firearm casts baleful rays upon the owner, forcing him to use it on a friend, family member, household pet, or himself.I'd be wary about going to DC for any reason, armed or unarmed. Part of that is because of the ban in effect, which tells criminals they are free to accost law-abiding citizens without worrying about being met with superior force, and part of that is because of the crime rate said ban has failed to reduce.
Having said that, I would note there are a number of ways to be armed without carrying a gun. What is JF Thomas' view of carrying hunting knives? Collapsible batons? Stun guns? Is it OK to carry a baseball bat for self defense, or does that make me just as crazy and bitter as the guys who need to buy ammunition?
Which brings two lessons to mind:
1. The habit of striking out and 'fixing' other posters' texts is juvenile at best, obnoxiously self-defeating at worst.
2. Hard-core ideologues on the right (the left as well, they're just less prevalent here) clearly do not understand the concept of self-parody.
Here's the distinction that should be made:
1. Telling your co-workers you went on a date with your wife? Okay.
2. Telling your co-workers you went on a date with your partner? Okay.
3. Telling your co-workers about the anal/oral sex you had on that date with your wife OR partner?
Way too much information.
If you dont see anything absurd in claiming that others reacted as if he were a cannibal for simply admitting that he had fired a gun (not even a mention of ownership or a handgun for that matter), Im sorry but I am unable to explain it to you.
I have nothing against firing or owning a gun. What did I ever say that implied I did? And even if I did, how would that make me a "ninny"?
I kept having the nametag torn off through rough handling. I tried and lost a number of them so when I got a nametag for renewing my membership with the NRA, I put it on. It was suede said, “I’m the NRA” on the front. The VERY first time I used it, the luggage was “lost”. It was never found. That was the ONLY time the luggage was never found, before and after. Of course, it may have been a coincidence. Maybe.
I think you actually disagree with EV, then.
The fact that people cling to them like they are their most valued possession is alarming--your most valued possession is a murder weapon? Charlton Heston and "cold, dead hands" bumper stickers come to mind.
I don't think he believes his lack of CCW permit is a magical barrier to harm. He may just feel he is incapable of defending himself with a firearm, should he be carrying one when the need arises. But that's a problem easily solved by a permit class and a few hours on the range.
Now if he has a moral objection to using deadly force in self defense, that's a different story. And I submit the alleged morality in that case is abhorrent (strong word intentionally used) and further away from rationality than that of most gun owners.
I disagree. People have legitimate interests in owning a gun. Whether for self defense or sport, I dont think there has to be "something going on in your head."
I dont understand why some people place this above other important issues, but it is clearly an important right.
My gun isn't a murder weapon. It's a gun.
But glass houses: what about your assortment of murder weapons, next to the forks, in an unlocked drawer in your kitchen?
Is there something wrong with my psychology as well? Do your mind reading rays of morality detect something objectionable "going on in my head"? Is it the mere possession of a firearm that turns otherwise decent people into the crazed paranoids the (ironically paranoid) anti-gun crowd sees all around them, or does any instrument of self-defense provide proof of mental instability?
I get it now! Self defense is not legitimate, and therefore preparation for self defense is not legitimate, and the ownership of an effective means of self defense is a sign of mental disorder.
That's the point. To have and possibly carry a device for inflicting serious or fatal harm on another.
There are reasons to do that. It isn't what goes on in somebody's head. It's what goes on around him.
As a matter of fact--hope this doesn't cause any cerebral asplosions--I carry two such devices with me at all times. They are attached to my arms by my wrists.
Now where did I say that? I live in a city with a high crime rate but I don't let fear of crime rule my life. I enjoy myself but I am prudent, take precautions, and am aware of my surroundings. Break down murder statistics and you will find that once you factor out criminals killing other criminals and acquaintances killing eachother, getting murdered by a stranger is a pretty rare instance. The Times Picayune did a study of murders in New Orleans in 2004 and found that over 80% of the victims had felony arrests.
The muggings in N.O. do bother me though. But honestly, even if I went to the time, expense, and effort to buy a gun, learn to use it properly, and get licensed to carry it, its hard to conceive (even after reading all the "Armed Citizen" stories in those NRA magazines) of it actually doing much good in any but the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g. being confronted by an extremely inept and stupid criminal).
But before I do, and on a slightly different tangent, but with respect to the phenomena and not EV's example, there is always Pauline Kael's aprocryphal statement regarding Richard Nixon's 1972 landslide, "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."
The phenomena is based on our personal projections and experiences--we each consider ourselves rational and intelligent, so people "like us" must really be "like us." We fill in the missing pieces about what we know of others by projecting either ourselves or our perceptions of what people in a particular group are like onto them.
That is all this phenomena is about--nothing more and nothing less.
For example, without knowing more, our experiences would be that an extremely rich person living in a solidly "red" state would probably be a Republican--though that description also describes Warren Buffett, who is not.
Our experience would be that a black person is likely to be a Democrat, though Clarence Thomas is not.
And if I see a white, middle aged attorney, I will project onto that person all things about myself (since I am a white middle aged attorney) until I find pieces of that person's puzzle that prove me wrong.
No, but the way the anecdote was relayed implied that Reynolds was showing his salt of the earth UT Law Students (who probably bring their deer rifles to class) how out of touch, and what pansies, those elitist Yalies (like George Bush) are.
Let's just do a little mind experiment that does not center around the politically charged area of 2nd Amendment rights (I only mention in passing that I know there is a personal right to bear arms precisely because the 2nd Amendment does not use the word individual or person but uses the word "people" which we all know really means individual and person, but I digress).
I do not know any serial killers. But I must know serial killers since serial killers exist. The only fault is that in the universe of people whom I know, none have admitted to their true nature.
There are just some very wildly different social pressures in place. I've lived in Massachusetts, where law-abiding gun owners are treated like felons-to-be. Revealing gun ownership there won't just get stares like you've committed cannibalism; it's enough to get you fired, have your car searched once a week, or have political pressure to get your ownership permit revoked suddenly appear.
It's been thirty-five years since gay people were being thrown at psychiatrists. It's been five days since a state governor suggested every gun owner be thrown to the shrinks. It's been more than twenty years since sexual orientation discrimination laws were first codified in state law. Individuals, like Chris Byrne, fired suspiciously close to the time a boss found out about their gun ownership, are in a fairly common situation with little legal recourse, and are opposed by folk whose particular brand of bigotry is not considered socially unacceptable.
That's just been my personal experience, but I think it's a non-trivial one.
(1) Hypocrisy. I suspect that a large number of the gun-owning "how dare you impose your morality on me" types are the same people who vote against gay rights. I should support your right to carry a murder device, but somehow my brother's marriage to a man should be forbidden. We call that "hypocrisy."
(2) Paranoia. The whole "I need my gun because the world is out to get me" thing is a little paranoid, don't you think? When's the last time someone broke into your house and tried to kill you? How often does that happen? How often does that happen and gun ownership somehow prevents it? I don't think the numbers are in the gun owners' favor here.
(3) Denial. It's a murder weapon. Whether you use it for "sport" (I assume you mean killing animals) or otherwise, the "fun" of it is that it kills things. Even if you use non-live targets, that same end could be accomplished by paintguns or bb guns -- you choose the real gun for a reason, and therein lies the question of psychology.
And, yes, Unbeliever, something is wrong with you. It actually surpises me that your question seems phrased rhetorically to evoke the opposite answer. If you can't see that, I am not sure that I can do much to help you.
I do. Several years ago, I read a book discussing psychological profiling of criminals. To my shock, one of the criminals profiled was a guy I had grown up with, a couple years older than me. Like most serial killers, he used a knife. The second time he killed, he took the knife from the victim's kitchen drawer. He wasn't a very successful serial killer, though, he was put away after the second time.
it is what is referred to in the threat matrix as "low frequency, high risk.". it's similar to homeowners insurance. your chance of your home being burned down, or otherwise rendered valueless (malibu residents excepted) is EXTREMELY small.
however. would YOU own a house without having insurance? assuming, you could (if you have a mortgage, they will make you hold it,,, but you get my point).
i've carried concealed for 20 years, and carried on the job for the same period of years. while i've certainly used it on the job numerous times, i've only used it (arguably) once while off duty, and that was just a quick display to a couple of thugs who were approaching me and my GF in a dark parking lot, with nobody around. they walked away, so it served its purpose.
regardless, it's not paranoid to want to take personal responsibility for yourself and/or your family.
if you offered me 10k to let my house insurance lapse for a week, i wouldn't do it. sure, my chance of loss is infinitessimally small, but if i did have a catastrophic incident, it would seriously hurt me to the extent i was not willing to take the risk, especially assuming that we discount for the sake of argument, bankruptcy protection. (i have more than enough capital to pay off my equity, but it would kill my trading account ) :(
it's not paranoid to want protection against an extremely unlikely but extremely devastating risk - specifically death.
i approach it from a game theory way, but that's cause of my background.
fwiw, i live outside seattle, and it's an extremely low risk city. iirc, in many crime categories (including many violent crimes), it's lower risk than vancouver canada.
i don't always carry, but i frequently do.
and i've had people that i have gone out with numerous times who have no idea i am carrying.
Maybe it would be best to inquire regarding everyone's views, rather than making uniformed blanket assertions.
dumbest thing i've read in a while.
guns are not more a "murder weapon" than penises are a "rape weapon".
if MISUSED, they can be a murder weapon, much like the penis.
if used properly, they can prevent murder. and fwiw, they are designed for killing, not MURDERING.
there is a huge difference. to quote my favorite lawyer from "legally blonde" ... mens rea.
So how dangerous are US inner city neighborhoods? Very dangerous— especially if you live there and are white. La Griffe du Lion provides the probabilities in his essay Crime in the Hood. He computes the probability that a white person will become the victim of a violent crime as a function of the neighborhood demographics. That magic 50% point occurs when the neighborhood is more than about 87% black. Of course that’s living there. The probability of becoming a victim with one trip into such a neighborhood would be about 0.14%, assuming living there is equivalent to 355 trips. That’s a pretty small number, so I conclude that there is no need to carry a gun if you plan a single trip into a dangerous inner city neighborhood. But if you live there, you better pack.
(2) Paranoia. The whole "I need my gun because the world is out to get me" thing is a little paranoid, don't you think? When's the last time someone broke into your house and tried to kill you?
Prudence dictates I don't wait till something bad happens to me to prepare for it. I have a fire extinguisher in my car and in my garage, even though I have never had a fire in either place. I don't assume that the presence of my extinguisher actively deters fire; why should this effect be necessary. I wear seat belts all the time, even though I have been in only two traffic accidents in 25 years (rear ended both times.)
(3) Denial.
The potential lethality of firearms requires the user to treat it with the proper respect, same as driving a car. Like the atom bomb, they do not have to be used to be effective; their effectiveness is chiefly as a deterrent.
while you make a good point from a logical stance, let's remember that gun owners (in seattle area certainly) are very very very common. so, are concealed weapons holders.
serial killers, not so much. although we have our fair share :)
i can tell you there are a LOT of people carrying in the seattle area. using my "keen powers of observation" (20 yrs on the street), i can frequently make out the "telltale" bulge on people when i am downtown seattle. and of course far more carry than i can make out the bulge. i know from citizen contacts, that a fair %age of people are carrying. in terms of carrying legally, i almost never contact a SUSPECT (of any crime) who is legally carrying a firearm, that i am aware of. since i pat down a fair %age of suspects (and all of those i arrest), that stat is reasonably accurate. the last one i remember was a DUI driver about 5 years ago. i fairly frequently encounter witnesses and victims who let me know they are carrying (since you rarely have reason to pat down a victim/witness, you aren't gonna know unless you tell them).
my point is it is quite easy for the average seattleite to walk around assuming that they are surrounded by people similarly unarmed as they are. the reality is that a pretty fair %age of people are carrying. moreso in the unincorporated rural areas of course. but plenty in the city.
much as the average new yorker can go many years if not their entire life on average, and never see a NYPD cop with their gun drawn, it does not follow that NYPD cops don't fairly frequently have to draw down on suspects.
a seattleite can walk around for 20 years and never see a single civilian with a gun, yet they encounter hundreds if not thousands.
Hawkins: Do I need to, really? I don't think it's that controversial that gun owners are more often than not Republican and that Republicans are heavily engaged in the practice of moral regulation (especially most and most recently against gays). Of course there are many many many cases where this is not true -- I am saying the majority (at least) would fit in this category.
similarly, i don't fear my house being burned down. but i carry insurance for the same reason.
Back to the actual topic at hand. In a way, I'm surprised by how many people have taken the "nobody's business" angle on their gun ownership. I can understand this if your gun(s) are only for home defense, but for those of us who really enjoy the shooting sports, it seems like a shame to keep a hobby secret.
I mean, knowing that I have a shotgun is just as much my friends' "business" as knowing that I have a pair of skiis; trap shooting is a fun sport -- why would I keep it a secret unless I were being cowed by others' (perceived) anti-gun attitudes, just like EV's post describes?
believe in the virtue of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. They don't expect a government agency to bail them out in a crisis. Further, it is settled law (see, e.g. Bowers v. DeVito) that the state generally does not have an affirmative duty to protect citizens from private acts of violence.
Cling? Is that you, Barack? I didn't know you read VC!
Oh please. What else is the entire panoply of liberal dogma - from gay "rights" to gun control to the environment to affirmative action to "economic justice" - but a system of moral regulation that liberals are aggressively, and successfully, promoting, most often under the aegis of the Democrats?
And the sword question was not rhetorical: I actually do own a sword, because I practice martial arts and some of the routines involve how to defend against archaic weapons as well as how to use them. I have no illusions that it will protect me from a home invader or a mugger, and in those situations I would not use a sword. I asked the question mainly to demonstrate that your position is poorly conceived and leads to ludicrious conclusions, and your hysteria is not limited to firearms.
You basically admitted you do not want anyone to have any means of potential self defense, except maybe dialing 911 and begging the cops to save you. (Good luck getting the criminal to stand idly by while you fumble for your cell phone.) You equated the mere possession of a single-use instrument with mental instability; either you are against self-defense, or you are against doing defending yourself effectively. Either way, your ideals violate aspects of morality more basic than anything even approaching the arena of gay marriage. Do you really want to envision a world where gays are allowed to get a marriage license but are forbidden to defend themselves against hate crimes?
Save your "help" for some unfortunate soul who has the bad luck to ask you for it. The day people take your line of thought seriously is we turn our back on thousands of years of human history and drive a knife into the heart of civilized society. Or are we taking away all the kitchen knives too?
repubs and dems BOTH are heavily engaged in the practice of moral regulation.
that's what makes libertarianism a SUPERIOR (imo) political philosophy.
while i do think govt. should enforce some "morality laws"... incest comes to mind, generally speaking im pretty friggin libertarian.
only a dem/leftwinger could argue that repubs are the ones engaged in moral regulation, when its pretty clear both parties do it so frequently they should get a 1/2 price soda with all their posing.
Mr. Thomas, please check your facts before posting and making balnket assumptions/stereotypes. UT students are not allowed to bring firearms on campus.
Though I disagree with the original commenter's broad assertions, actually, your attitude *is* at least morally hypocritical, if you think restrictions on personal liberty are generally odious. If you don't think that and your claim is only that deeply historically rooted rights are worthy of legal protection, I expect you to advocate bringing back the right to own other human beings posthaste.
KWC200 posts: Rarango: Disprove; don't rant.
OK--Show me your data for: "I suspect that gun types are homophobic" not your words, but i think my paraphrase is accurate...
(2) You ASSUME that gun owners are paranoid: show me the evidence that says they are before you make the assertion
(3) Whit demolishes your argument about the sole purpose of guns being to take lives (and as a shooter of sporting clays, I can assure you those clays feel no pain).
When you provide some evidence for your assertions, I will assume you arguing in good faith; until then, I will just assume you rendered your opinions on the readership as some sort of brilliant argument. Not nearly as brilliant as you seem to think it is.
And every time I use a pocket knife to open a sealed box, would I be denying that it's a 'murder weapon'. After all, I could have used a key or some not-sharp-enough-to-kill device.
Might make steak night a bit problematic, from your viewpoint, though.
As, for those with more than three functioning brain cells, I'll point out that the average paintball gun, BB gun, and Airsoft gun are not really capable of many, many things that a similarly priced real metal gun is. BBs and paintballs just aren't aerodynamic at long ranges, and electrical power or compressed gas just isn't a good energy storage mechanism. I can pretty easily put a couple dozen .22LR bullets within one ragged hole at 75 feet with a 90 USD gun. An airsoft gun capable of that size of grouping would cost several times the amount of money, and paintballs can not do so reliably.
It's a great thing that your suspicions alone are not exactly useful evidence. It's another great thing that what I do myself on my own time with my own property is rather dramatically different than a government license for government recognition.
The statistical, per capita, odds for being the victim of a violent crime are roughly one third that of the odds of being in an automobile accident, using 2003 numbers. We legally mandate safety features for the latter, regardless of the odds of a specific individual being in a crash. I do not consider it paranoid to prepare for the former.
Not true. I have been to UT football games, and there are always armed students (or at least one student) at every game. (You will find that this is a true, if completely deceptive, statement).
Obviously you don't appreciate sarcasm.
You know it is really ridiculous that you keep insisting that a pocket knife (that you could—and I regularly did—carry on airplanes pre-9/11) is an effective self defense or offensive weapon. Especially if it doesn't have a locking blade, you are much more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else if you get in a knife fight with a pocket knife.
Or perhaps he means I'm liberal with my sarcasm?
Like THIS?
youtube.com/watch?v=ixnYHSYzHtk
Maybe the NRA needs its own version of ACT UP (but "Shoot Up" seems ill-advised).
Disclaimer: I'm pro 2A (and "out" about it).
But the chances of being a victim of violent crime are much lower if you don't hang out with or around criminals and bad people. Most victims of crime know their attacker and most murder victims are not very nice people to begin with. And even when fine upstanding citizens are killed it is usually because of some domestic dispute. Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers. Crime occurs in clusters, while auto accidents are well-distributed across the population.
J.F. Thomas, judging by all the responses, you forgot to add "touchy" and "overly-defensive" to the list of descriptors.
That's some fine trolling. Does your mommy know you're using the computer?
The government can have my hands, feet and other weaponized body parts when they pry them from my cold dead corpse.
If that alarms you, consult a reputable psychiatrist.
Actually a friend of mine, while in grad school at UC in Social Work, was "mugged" in the Hyde Park neighborhood. I put mugged in quotes because she negotiated with her assailant and got him to agree to take only five dollars.
What I do have is archery equipment, which is stored in a way that makes it absolutely useless for self-defense. But I suppose I could use it on the offense if I took it out and put it together in advance. People have used bows to rob convenience stores in the past, and of course there's always the precedent of the Battle of Agincourt.
But if I really wanted to kill someone, I have lots of other options. Cooking knives. Golf clubs. Heavy brass lamps. A significant percentage of the things in my toolbox. And a few of the bottles under my kitchen sink, if it comes to that.
What's with the fixation on guns? Is it some Darkover novel thing, where people should only be able to inflict force if they come within range of having it inflicted right back? Or is it part of a cultural aversion to 19th Century industrial technology, with all the ugly dark metal? I'm not sure I get it. Stuff is stuff, and the reason I don't go around braining people with my golf clubs isn't that they come equipped with a locking mechanism. It isn't even that the people in Berkeley might disapprove, odd as that might sound to them.
I think this is turning into a very weird thread. You are being accused of being a liberal. Meanwhile, Rarango and I both agreed with Loki13.
If CrazyTrain posts on this thread today and I also agree with him, I am going to be very scared.
Is there a full moon or something?
Yes, and because the risk of being mugged or killed is small, it's unhealthy to carry a weapon as a precaution. It would be much more healthy to just hope that you never end up a statistic, and if you do, well, them's the breaks.
My current pocketknives are a CRKT M16-10KZ and a Taylor Cutlery (aka Smith and Wesson branded) SW990TA. Neither of them are ideal weapons, but they'd be fairly good in a knife fight; they're long enough to cut the important tendons in an individual's arms, are a locking and straight blade respectively, and are light enough weight to be easily handled.
I'd prefer a real gun, a >50kv taser, several cans of mace, and a pair of long butterfly knives, respectively, but the pocket knives are a lot easier and more legal to carry in more places.
Same-sex marriage may be worthy of legal protection, but it is still a subject of debate. For example, none of the remaining Presidential candidates favor SSM; even "the most liberal Senators" are throwing their LGBT constituents under the proverbial bus. In contrast, after a century and a half, the right not to be enslaved is fairly well established. The recognition of the right to individual self-defense goes back millennia (Grotius wrote about it, as Fred Thompson reminded us) and its basis in natural law is obvious (if you kill me, I will cease to exist).
true. although many people can't choose their neighborhood (at least $$$ wise), or their neighbors.
" Most victims of crime know their attacker and most murder victims are not very nice people to begin with. And even when fine upstanding citizens are killed it is usually because of some domestic dispute. Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers. Crime occurs in clusters, while auto accidents are well-distributed across the population."
again, true. but auto accidents are much like violent crimes in that in many cases the victim did at least something to contribute to them becoming a victim.
in the case of auto accidents, at a minimum - not driving defensively, etc.
you can certainly decrease your chances of being in a collision OR being a victim of violent crime.
other factors are more out of your control (where you live, what roads you need to travel to get to work). another factor often out of control is WHEN you drive. there are far more drunk drivers, etc. (dangerous drivers) after 10pm on a friday night, then on a sunday at 1pm. but if you gotta be at work at 1030 pm, you are more likely to be a victim in your commute, then somebody who drives in stop and go traffic at 900 am.
etc. etc
i think we can both agree there are affirmative steps you can take to minimize your chance of victimhood - while driving, and while walking around (violent crime violence). people should drive defensively. people should also not do generally stupid stuff (like stumble drunk through a dark alley at 3 am while wearing an expensive watch and muttering about how much money you have in your wallet ) :)
Well yes, I am much more likely to get killed slipping and falling in my bathroom. Yet it is unhealthy for me not to take a bath.
It is unhealthy to say or think "I am not going to go to dinner in New Orleans or Chicago because I won't be able to carry my gun (in the former case because I might have a couple drinks and it would be irresponsible) and I am afraid I might get assaulted."
I consider myself that way too, yet comments on Gun Rights Threads here never fail to make me a little bit nervous, or at a minimum feeling the need to argue against some of the things said here.
Not really.
I, for example, do not drink, do not drugs, and do not get distracted while driving. I drive only when well-rested, and while I drive fairly long distances, I do not drive through any major population centers. My car has a fairly good turning radius, is kept in good condition, and is highly visible. My odds of being in a car accident are rather significantly lower than the odds of someone who inverts these.
If auto accidents were well-distributed throughout the population, you wouldn't see car companies being able to accurately determine and distinguish which individuals are good risks and which are bad.
Sarcasm, J. F. Thomas; J. F. Thomas, sarcasm. Do you work at being this obtuse, or does it come naturally?
For my money, tac knives are a Good Thing(tm). The first pocket knife I ever carried was my grandfather's WWII era penknife. I still have it for sentimental reasons, but I upgraded to a tactical folder shortly after once I tried cutting anything tougher than a taped box.
And for the really paranoid, we can get into flexible weapons and the weaponized bandana. But I don't want KWC2000 to drop his pants once he realizes that belt around his waist is a potential murder weapon.
I was an undergraduate at Harvard in 1964, when a poll found that about 20% of the undergraduates supported Goldwater in the election. I was astonished. I would have said that there were about twenty Goldwater supporters in the student body, and I knew all of them.
I suspect this pattern may help explain an interesting conversation I had at the time with a stranger in the Harvard area. He wanted to know how I could support Goldwater. We went through lots of issues, on each of which I had arguments in favor of Goldwater's position which he pretty clearly had not heard and had no immediate rebuttal to.
It was a friendly conversation. At the end of it he asked me, somewhat hesitantly, if perhaps I was taking all of these positions as a joke. Pretty clearly it was the equivalent of "what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?" How could I be smart enough to offer such clever arguments for what was obviously the wrong side, and yet stupid enough to support that side?