The Volokh Conspiracy

"I Knew Nobody Who Owned a Gun":

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.

Tennessean (mail):
Perhaps you're misunderstanding 'know'. How about 'Growing up in Seattle, I did not have sex with any gun owners.' or 'Growing up in Seattle, I never really understood any gun owners.'?
4.21.2008 8:49am
Donna B. (mail) (www):
Growing up in rural areas of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, I didn't know anyone who would admit to not owning a gun.

Not owning one, but everyone believing that you do gives a bit of protection itself.
4.21.2008 9:02am
M (mail):
I doubt that most people, even in the situation described above, "hide" their gun ownership in the way people hide (or hid) their sexual orientation. I owned a handgun for many years (a retired police service revolver given to my by my father when the police department he worked for switched to 9mm) but didn't tell many people about it, not because I was hiding it or was afraid of what people would think but just because I didn't have much reason to mention it most of the time. I rarely shot it and of course didn't brandish it about or make silly remarks about it so it just didn't come up. But, if there was reason to mention it I certainly didn't "hide" it, despite the fact that gun ownership was quite uncommon (as far as I knew) in the groups I spent time with. I suspect that this is more common than people being afraid to say they own a gun.

(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.)
4.21.2008 9:11am
rarango (mail):
My wife and I have two revolvers and two shotguns in the house--I don't mention them to people--absolutely none of their business. Perhaps there is some sort of perception that gun owners are fondling, brandishing, and otherwise flaunting their fire arms, around the non-gun owning public. Whatever. As Professor V notes, says more about the quoted indvidual than gun owners, I think.
4.21.2008 9:14am
chug (mail) (www):
another reason for not mentioning you own guns is that some parents of your children's friends make a point of letting you know that if you own guns they do not want their children visiting your children in your home - even if your guns are in a gun safe. I speak from personal experience.
4.21.2008 9:22am
S.C. Public Defender:
When I was growing up, my dad (who was a police officer, and therefore presumptively in possession of a gun) always told me not to talk about our guns to my friends/others. His worry, I think, being that people might try and either break in and steal them when we were not home or go looking for them when visiting. Of course, my dad's paranoid. :-)
4.21.2008 9:27am
Hoosier:
I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual who owned a gun.

But you never know:http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88cgunclub.phtml
4.21.2008 9:29am
Pub Editor:
Glenn Reynolds one told us (in Con Law class): when he was a law student at Yale (82-85), he told some classmates that he had used a firearm. He says that their reaction was similar to as if he had said that he'd eaten human flesh.
4.21.2008 9:33am
Iolo:
some parents of your children's friends make a point of letting you know that if you own guns they do not want their children visiting your children in your home - even if your guns are in a gun safe. I speak from personal experience.

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.
4.21.2008 9:33am
Ben P (mail):
I think I can say the opposite

"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.
4.21.2008 9:35am
hawkins:

Glenn Reynolds one told us (in Con Law class): when he was a law student at Yale (82-85), he told some classmates that he had used a firearm. He says that their reaction was similar to as if he had said that he'd eaten human flesh.


Sounds like somethings absurd enough for him to say.
4.21.2008 9:37am
some dude:
The quote reminds me of Justice Powell's famous line "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual,"...

Ahhh, the good old days, when that kind of information wasn't everybody's business.

TMI
4.21.2008 9:39am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
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

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.
4.21.2008 9:44am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Glenn Reynolds one told us (in Con Law class): when he was a law student at Yale (82-85), he told some classmates that he had used a firearm. He says that their reaction was similar to as if he had said that he'd eaten human flesh.

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.
4.21.2008 9:46am
mf24:
Can you say "Carl Rowan"? I knew you could.
4.21.2008 9:49am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Some dude: I wonder why you say so. I know my heterosexual friends' and acquaintances' sexual orientation because I often see their boyfriends/girlfriends and spouses, or hear talk about them (not sexually explicitly, of course, but in a "what did you do last week?" / "I went skiing with my girlfriend" way), or see their pictures on office desks. One would expect to know one's homosexual friends' and acquaintances' sexual orientation the same way -- unless they were trying to hide this very important part of their lives. That is in fact what happened in the "old days," but I don't see why that was "good."
4.21.2008 9:50am
rarango (mail):
Reynolds statement pales in light of this particular absurdity from JF Thomas: "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."
4.21.2008 9:53am
josh:
poor, poor gun owners. the discirmination is unacceptable. let's make 'em a protected class!
4.21.2008 10:01am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
"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."

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.
4.21.2008 10:03am
rarango (mail):
So JFThomas: you extrapolate from Clayton's comments (an n = 1) to "a number of people.... You obviously have the data about gun ownership among posters on this site, and know that these particular posters have "an unhealthy fear of crime and strangers." Perhaps you could post your research in some academic journal, but I would submit it is not the best research method I have seen. I don't think it would get by peer review.
4.21.2008 10:08am
Mikeyes (mail):
I only have anectodal evidence, but when I was involved with the US Shooting Team, there were athletes who would not reveal to their friends that they shot for sport due to the expected reaction of ostracizing them.

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.
4.21.2008 10:12am
Guest101:

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.

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?
4.21.2008 10:20am
Orson Buggeigh:
I don't find Cramer's concern about his safety in some urban areas to be irrational or off the wall. Mr. Thomas, there are parts of Seattle, that I would probably not visit in daylight if avoidable. Cramer should be able to take appropriate measures,and so should people who live in Washington DC. If you feel that the metropolitan police are sufficient protection, then by all means, suit yourself. some people would prefer to have a firearm. I don't find this unreasonable. Of course, I grew up in the rural southwest myself. Back in those ancient days, every boy from age six had a pocket knife. None of us would have thought of leaving the house without one. We took them to school. No knife fights, nothing more outre than sharpening pencils or the occasional game of mumblety-peg. Today,I suspect a kid found with a pocket knife in his pocket would be expelled. Are we really safer and better off? I don't think so. I also don't think the idea that my neighbors may own firearms or weapons should be of any concern, unless they are building a suitcase nuke or nerve gas. But pistols and the like? Come off it. I'm far more concerned about a suicide bomber. And the probability of a suicide bomber in much of the US is, at present, minute.
4.21.2008 10:22am
darelf:
Of my very close circle of friends, I am the only one who does not own a gun. And I don't mean the hunting variety, I mean handguns.

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.
4.21.2008 10:25am
Iolo:
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?

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?
4.21.2008 10:27am
DaSarge (mail):
Wow!! Everyone thinking with their feelings again. I grew up and live in Seattle. I've owned a gun all my life, as do my brothers. I had dinner last night with a law school classmate; he, too, owns a gun. Gun owners are, in fact, all over Seattle. Just check attendance at the ranges.

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:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
4.21.2008 10:28am
DaSarge (mail):
Wow!! Everyone thinking with their feelings again. I grew up and live in Seattle. I've owned a gun all my life, as do my brothers. I had dinner last night with a law school classmate; he, too, owns a gun. Gun owners are, in fact, all over Seattle. Just check attendance at the ranges.

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:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
4.21.2008 10:28am
rarango (mail):
What Iolo said! We all know that the only reason there are illegal guns on the streets is that they have all been stolen from paranoid homeowners who fear strangers and crime. If gun ownership were made illegal, gun crimes would magically disappear. /sarcasm off
4.21.2008 10:31am
Hoosier:
EV--There's a ditinction: When I say to my coworkers that I took my wife on a date over the weekend, that's called "Being a caring husband."

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.
4.21.2008 10:33am
30yearProf:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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.)
4.21.2008 10:34am
MDJD2B (mail):

Oh really? Clayton revealed he would feel uncomfortable going to DC for the SC hearing if he couldn't be armed.

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.
4.21.2008 10:38am
ithaqua (mail):

EV--There's a ditinction: When I say to my coworkers that I took my wife on a date over the weekend, that's called actually "Being a caring husband."

On the other hand: If a gay person says the equivalent, it's called actually "Flaunting his sexual preference right in our faces."

See? So that's the distinction. Write it down.

Fixed to remove liberal sarcasm.
4.21.2008 10:39am
Houston Lawyer:
When I was a child, we often saw rifles in racks behind the seats of pickup trucks. They were there for easy access. Now, in our more enlightened society, nobody keeps visable guns in their trucks anymore. There is so much more crime now and guns are a primary target for theives. If you know someone with a safe in his house, the primary purpose of that safe is most likely to protect his guns from thieves.

I'm still trying to organize a pistol shooting event for the summer clerks. The skeet shooting event for clients was a big success.
4.21.2008 10:52am
ChrisIowa (mail):

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?


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.
4.21.2008 10:53am
Tony Tutins (mail):
I agree with EV. When I was a kid there was a concept entitled "That's none of your business." For example, "Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who had anal intercourse." Those who do, don't feel the need to broadcast it to their friends and acquaintances.
4.21.2008 10:56am
Q the Enchanter (mail) (www):
In re Glenn Reynolds: similarly, I remember when I told my conservative friends that I ate brie and drank pinot.
4.21.2008 11:01am
CJColucci:
I own guns. I have no idea who among other people I know -- a few professionals aside -- owns them. It rarely comes up. When it has come up, here in NYC, the reaction is usually mild curiosity. Your results may vary.
4.21.2008 11:03am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Q.
Get back to us when the unit cost for your wine rises to the unit cost of your aftershave.
4.21.2008 11:06am
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Chicago has the most restrictive ban 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. None of it deters murderers or crime/drug gangs in the slightest.]

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.
4.21.2008 11:08am
anonthu:
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.

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!
4.21.2008 11:13am
Tony Tutins (mail):
I am some kind of pathetic, scared wimp just because I don't see the need to own a gun.

This is merely prudent. As I understand Dr. Kellermann's articles published by the New England Journal of Criminology Medicine, 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.
4.21.2008 11:17am
CDU (mail) (www):
This conversation reminds me of something Clint Smith said, "If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"
4.21.2008 11:20am
George Smith (mail):
I have never owned a firearm and don't intend to. I have never been hunting and don't intend to. My children aren't allowed to have toy guns. I eat quiche. My wuss credentials now having been firmly established, may I observe that hawkins and JF Thomas appear to be complete ninnies?
4.21.2008 11:21am
rarango (mail):
Its "whack-a-mole" time starring JF Thomas as the mole--Renolds didn't say all yale law studenets reacted that way, now, did he. You have an uncanny ability to take a single sentence or phrase, and from that one expression create an entire alternate universe.
4.21.2008 11:23am
anonthu:
well, we should probably take it easy on JF Thomas: he was just worried about our unhealthy fears, which are unhealthy, which to him, just seem unhealthy.
4.21.2008 11:31am
The Unbeliever:
Clayton revealed he would feel uncomfortable going to DC for the SC hearing if he couldn't be armed.


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?
4.21.2008 11:33am
loki13 (mail):
Amazingly enough, Ithaqua's fix did not work.

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.
4.21.2008 11:37am
hawkins:

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.


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.


may I observe that hawkins and JF Thomas appear to be complete ninnies?


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"?
4.21.2008 11:44am
HO (mail):
I believe it is wise not to advertise that a person has anything to do with guns. About 25 years ago, I had an engineering job that required a lot of travel. That was back when airline travel was reasonably nice. I had my luggage temporarily lost a number of times (maybe as many as 1/4 of the trips), but it always found its way back later that day or the next. Except once.

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.
4.21.2008 11:49am
Jaypher (mail):
I agree with EV. When I was a kid there was a concept entitled "That's none of your business." For example, "Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who had anal intercourse." Those who do, don't feel the need to broadcast it to their friends and acquaintances.

I think you actually disagree with EV, then.
4.21.2008 11:50am
rarango (mail):
I agree entirely with Loki13 about the "fixing" of others posts. I plan to mark this day on my calendar as I don't think I have ever agreed with Loki before. :)
4.21.2008 11:53am
therut:
J.F. Thomas reminds me of "The Grizzley Man" Treadway( I think his name was). He calls those who are aware and prepared paranoid while he seems to be proud he walks the streets of a crime ridden city just daring anyone to harm him cause you know "I who am aganist firearms will not be harmed ie. hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil). It is called being childish and nieve. I hope he does not regret his silly prideful strutting. Pride always comes before the fall.
4.21.2008 11:56am
KWC2000 (mail):
Something must be said about the psychology of gun owners. There has to be something going on in your head to make you want to own a device whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal injury (or threaten the infliction of fatal injury).

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.
4.21.2008 11:58am
Elliot123 (mail):
Has anybody asked Obama if he owns a gun? Maybe something he once purchased in a fit of bitterness at Washington's failure to listen to him?
4.21.2008 12:00pm
The Unbeliever:

He calls those who are aware and prepared paranoid while he seems to be proud he walks the streets of a crime ridden city just daring anyone to harm him cause you know "I who am aganist firearms will not be harmed ie. hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil).


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.
4.21.2008 12:02pm
hawkins:

Something must be said about the psychology of gun owners. There has to be something going on in your head to make you want to own a device whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal injury (or threaten the infliction of fatal injury).

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 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.
4.21.2008 12:03pm
BT:
Hey J.F. Thomas I happen to do an extensive amount of work on the south side of Chicago,(please see article posted above about this weekends killings, although the latest figuers are 7 dead) a city you would love becuase they disarm guys like me, you know--law abiding. Anyway, the next time you are in town, let me know and I will pick you up at Midway and I will use you as my protection. I am not black and I am not particularly big, so I can use all the help I can get.
4.21.2008 12:04pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Orson Buggeigh: Same experience growing up in urban Massachusetts, but clearly that was in a time far distant from today. If I had been carrying a switch-blade or 'gravity knife', it would have been a different story, though...
4.21.2008 12:06pm
anonthu:
your most valued possession is a murder weapon?

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?
4.21.2008 12:09pm
The Unbeliever:
KWC2000: I actually own a sharpened battle-ready sword at home, and I though it's not my "most valued possession" I do value it quite a lot. I am trained in its use, it is designed to inflict fatal injury with great efficiency, and I would not give it up even if a law was passed to make ownership illegal. (I don't carry it in public, but that is mostly a matter of style and convenience.)

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?
4.21.2008 12:11pm
Jiminy (mail):
Similar to pot smokers.
4.21.2008 12:13pm
Iolo:
There has to be something going on in your head to make you want to own a device whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal injury (or threaten the infliction of fatal injury).

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.
4.21.2008 12:13pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
KWCwhatever.
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.
4.21.2008 12:14pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Don't tell anyone you own a gun if you live or work in Berkeley CA. Owing a gun there is tantamount to possessing an atomic weapon. If you should admit it, then you run the risk of being shunned by your neighbors or coworkers. You can do a lot less than that and suffer. I know someone who worked for a small consulting firm in Berkeley. She had a good relationship with her boss until she declined to go on a peace march (this person was apolitical). After that he become somewhat nasty to her and she eventually quit. He would remarks to her coworkers like "she's a Republican." This of course is the ultimate insult in Berkeley. Better to admit being a child molester than a Republican in Berkeley.
4.21.2008 12:14pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
He calls those who are aware and prepared paranoid while he seems to be proud he walks the streets of a crime ridden city just daring anyone to harm him

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).
4.21.2008 12:14pm
Dave N (mail):
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.
When I find myself agreeing with Loki13, I know that I need to do something constructive and get back to work.

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.
4.21.2008 12:14pm
rarango (mail):
It is the imperious arrogance of people like KWC2000 who seem to know all about a person because he or she owns a gun that turn bitter old me increasingly bitter. And for the record, there are other purposes for a gun (pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun) other than "inflicting fatal injury."
4.21.2008 12:17pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Renolds didn't say all yale law studenets reacted that way, now, did he. You have an uncanny ability to take a single sentence or phrase, and from that one expression create an entire alternate universe.

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.
4.21.2008 12:18pm
eddiehaskel (mail):
Has the professor now added mind-reading to his set of pedagological tools.

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.
4.21.2008 12:19pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
I can rather honestly say that there are more close acquaintances out there that know my bisexuality (n>30) than know that I own firearms (n=6). Every close acquaintance that knows I own firearms also owns firearms themselves (100%), while I've predominately discussed my sexuality to individuals who themselves are not bisexual or gay (6.7%). Leaving the field of close acquaintances and going to all individuals I interact with, I've only brought up gun ownership with individuals directly related to shooting, firearms training, gaining a CCW, or purchasing a firearm. Even of the close acquaintances, most people I discussed my sexuality with I was not particularly planning to do anything bisexual with.

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.
4.21.2008 12:26pm
rarango (mail):
No, JFThomas--you inferred.
4.21.2008 12:26pm
hawkins:
Im still waiting to hear an explanation of why George Smith called me a "ninny."
4.21.2008 12:28pm
KWC2000 (mail):
The posts in response to mine demonstrate the following:

(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.
4.21.2008 12:40pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

But I must know serial killers since serial killers exist.

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.
4.21.2008 12:42pm
whit:
"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."

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.
4.21.2008 12:45pm
hawkins:

(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."


Maybe it would be best to inquire regarding everyone's views, rather than making uniformed blanket assertions.
4.21.2008 12:45pm
whit:
"(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. "

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.
4.21.2008 12:48pm
hattio1:
It's always interesting to me when the discussion turns to guns. I am generally liberal, but probably to the right of most posters here in regards to guns (I figure if you're out of jail and not on probation, your gun rights should be restored). That being said there are those on both sides who act like complete morons when the subject comes up. Some say it reveals a problem with your morality to own a gun, because it is only capable of causing death...bullshit. Others say NOT owning a gun implies that you aren't willing to use lethal force in self-defense and that also implies a problem with your morality. Where do people come up with this??? Lots of people don't own guns because they don't believe the hassle is worth the low risk of being in a situation where its needed. If you disagree, great, own your guns. I'm one of those who doesnt' own a gun (this may change soon) but would absolutely defend your right to own one.
4.21.2008 12:49pm
rarango (mail):
Congratulations, KWS2000: I didnt think it was possible to string together three of the most uninformed, judgmental, and erroneous statements I have seen. But you did it! Well done.
4.21.2008 12:49pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
When does a fear of crime become irrational? That depends on the probability of becoming a victim. If the probability is very small then I would say the fear is irrational. But if it exceeds 10% then it’s rational to be fearful. When soldiers perceive that they stand greater than a 50% chance of getting killed they will mutiny or run.

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.
4.21.2008 12:51pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
(1) Hypocrisy. I see no hypocrisy here. People have owned firearms in America since Europeans first settled here. The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. Same-sex marriage is a brand-new practice. At best it would be an emanation from a penumbra of rights, including the RKBA. I do support however your brother's right to stay with his "husband" till someone pries off his cold dead hands.

(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.
4.21.2008 12:54pm
whit:
"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."

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.
4.21.2008 12:56pm
KWC2000 (mail):
Rarango: Disprove; don't rant.

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.
4.21.2008 12:56pm
whit:
fwiw, i don't carry concealed because i FEAR crime. i carry because i want to be prepared.

similarly, i don't fear my house being burned down. but i carry insurance for the same reason.
4.21.2008 12:58pm
MXE (mail):
KWC2000: Peter Jackson called; they're missing a troll on the set of The Hobbit.

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?
4.21.2008 1:05pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
gun owners are more often than not Republican and that Republicans...

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.
4.21.2008 1:07pm
MXE (mail):
The fact that people cling to them like they are their most valued possession is alarming--your most valued possession is a murder weapon?

Cling? Is that you, Barack? I didn't know you read VC!
4.21.2008 1:10pm
Iolo:
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).

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?
4.21.2008 1:13pm
The Unbeliever:
Thanks for the response, KWC2000. I wasn't sure whether to write you off as a loon or not, but you have provided ample reason for doing so. To borrow a phrase, the fool has opened his mouth and removed all doubt.

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?
4.21.2008 1:17pm
genob:
Similar to A. Zarkov's comment about Berkeley....I live in Seattle and in the course of discussing my frustration that the ABA had used my dues to file a brief in the Heller case, it came out that I owned a gun. Now the reaction hasn't been quite as bad as the time that I suggested that it was possible that Bush didn't actually lie about WMD (perhaps he actually believed exactly what Bill and Hillary believed at the time, however wrong it was), but I am now considered that "crazy gun guy." The extreme reaction of many really has surprised me.
4.21.2008 1:19pm
whit:
"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 regulat"ion (especially most and most recently against gays)"

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.
4.21.2008 1:19pm
Pub Editor:

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.


Mr. Thomas, please check your facts before posting and making balnket assumptions/stereotypes. UT students are not allowed to bring firearms on campus.
4.21.2008 1:25pm
Thales (mail) (www):
"I see no hypocrisy here. People have owned firearms in America since Europeans first settled here. The right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution. Same-sex marriage is a brand-new practice. At best it would be an emanation from a penumbra of rights, including the RKBA. I do support however your brother's right to stay with his "husband" till someone pries off his cold dead hands."

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.
4.21.2008 1:25pm
rarango (mail):
rarango posts: Congratulations, KWS2000: I didnt think it was possible to string together three of the most uninformed, judgmental, and erroneous statements I have seen. But you did it! Well done. (my note: thats a rant?--nahh, snarky, but not a rant)

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.
4.21.2008 1:35pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
(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 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.

(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."


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.

(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.


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.
4.21.2008 1:40pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Mr. Thomas, please check your facts before posting and making balnket assumptions/stereotypes. UT students are not allowed to bring firearms on campus.

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.
4.21.2008 1:47pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
And every time I use a pocket knife to open a sealed box, would I be denying that it's a 'murder weapon'

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.
4.21.2008 1:53pm
ejo:
The fine citizens of Hyde Park, home to BO, are similarly dismissive of guns (and the evil police) until someone from the nearby ghettos come into the neighborhood for the easy pickings offered, be it some poor grad student from an African nation or other limousine lib. as to guns and this past weekend in Chicago, the simple fact is that we have lots of gangs who like to shoot their rivals. I, in all honesty, don't particularly care if gangbangers shoot one another. Of course, the actions of the politicians and the good reverends is directed at guns and not the moral failings of their constituents and flocks, leading me to believe they don't much care either.
4.21.2008 1:53pm
Hoosier:
Note Well: ithaqua "fixed" my post to remove "liberal sarcasm". Someone accusing me of liberal bias is not something one sees every day.

Or perhaps he means I'm liberal with my sarcasm?
4.21.2008 1:55pm
Hoosier:
"I suspect that gun types are homophobic"

Like THIS?

youtube.com/watch?v=ixnYHSYzHtk
4.21.2008 1:57pm
Aultimer:
Has anyone noticed the irony in the reports of gun-owners' fears of ostracism in a post on "preference falsification"?

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).
4.21.2008 1:58pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
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.

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.
4.21.2008 2:00pm
pdan (mail):

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.



J.F. Thomas, judging by all the responses, you forgot to add "touchy" and "overly-defensive" to the list of descriptors.
4.21.2008 2:00pm
Brett:
(1) Hypocrisy...

(2) Paranoia...

(3) Denial...


That's some fine trolling. Does your mommy know you're using the computer?
4.21.2008 2:05pm
Fub:
KWC2000 wrote at 4.21.2008 11:58am:
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 have two feet, and two hands consisting of two palms, eight fingers and two thumbs. I know how to use them to disable, blind, deafen, and kill, and quite quickly if performed properly. If I am assaulted and apprehend impending great bodily injury, I will use them for one or more of those purposes when possible to do so.

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.
4.21.2008 2:06pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
I carry a firearm for self-protection. I also keep a fire extinguisher the car. Does that mean I'm paranoid of fires?
4.21.2008 2:06pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
The fine citizens of Hyde Park, home to BO, are similarly dismissive of guns (and the evil police) until someone from the nearby ghettos come into the neighborhood for the easy pickings offered, be it some poor grad student

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.
4.21.2008 2:07pm
A.C.:
I don't have any guns, but my father has several and taught me to shoot when I was growing up. In Massachusetts. Sounds like things have changed.

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.
4.21.2008 2:07pm
Dave N (mail):
Hoosier,

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?
4.21.2008 2:07pm
Brett:
Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers.


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.
4.21.2008 2:09pm
ejo:
it's the new "bedwetter" argument offered on terrorism concerns in recent months being applied to the issue of guns. if you think you might need to protect yourself and can't afford a bodyguard, you are now a bedwetter. unlike the brave urban liberal going fearlessly into any neighborhood in (fill in the blank with major urban area).
4.21.2008 2:09pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
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.


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.
4.21.2008 2:10pm
Dave N (mail):
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.
Oh my gosh, now I am agreeing with J.F. Thomas. I am scared. Really, really, scared.
4.21.2008 2:10pm
The Unbeliever:
Fub: don't forget your elbows, knees, and forearms. But thanks for making the point, I was waiting on KWC2000 to try extending his ridiculous philosophy further down his train of "thought" before raising the issue.
4.21.2008 2:11pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
If you don't think that and your claim is only that deeply historically rooted rights are worthy of legal protection

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).
4.21.2008 2:13pm
whit:
"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."

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 ) :)
4.21.2008 2:14pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
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.

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."
4.21.2008 2:17pm
Ben P (mail):

Disclaimer: I'm pro 2A (and "out" about it).


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.
4.21.2008 2:17pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
Crime occurs in clusters, while auto accidents are well-distributed across the population.


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.
4.21.2008 2:19pm
Brett:
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.


Sarcasm, J. F. Thomas; J. F. Thomas, sarcasm. Do you work at being this obtuse, or does it come naturally?
4.21.2008 2:19pm
The Unbeliever:
gattsuru: when JF Thomas said "pocketknife", he was probably thinking more along the lines of a penknife or a boxcutter instead of a tactical knife. There have been several articles bemoaning the "weaponization" of pocket knives, as manufacturers moved away from the smaller folders into selling tac knives; I suspect the gear you carry runs close to being accused of the mindset JF Thomas and KWC2000 suspect gun holders to have.

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.
4.21.2008 2:23pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I don't actually believe the Glenn Reynolds story; it seems far too close to an actual documented quote of Scalia's:
This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this a question from the back of the room — “Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?” — as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people — “When did you first start eating human flesh?”
But the notion that this story is absurd makes no sense. Lots of urban liberals really do react that way to guns. There are hysterical parents who won't let their kids play with kids whose parents own guns. Etc.
4.21.2008 2:24pm
David Friedman (mail) (www):
Almost all of the comments are on the gun issue, but I would like to pick up on the more general point—that if some belief or behavior is disapproved of people tend to conceal it, and doing so makes it look as though the disapproval is much more nearly unanimous than it in fact is.

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?
4.21.2008 2:27pm
(