LATE EDIT: If you’re coming here from the link on the “Keep and Bear Arms” website — I’m under “From the Enemy Camp” — welcome! Join the fray, which I am now currently just ridiculing because it’s more fun. PS: Enemy camp? Really? Boy, you people are such drama queens!
***
I found this item courtesy of Warren Ellis, a very active writer and an even more active curmudgeon/demented genius (read his work at your own risk).
Go here to check out the full story, but here’s the short form: Arizona and Tennessee have approved laws that explicitly allow people to carry concealed weapons into establishments that serve alcohol.
I’ll preface this by saying I am not a big fan of the general public owning guns. I say this first because the average person has no need for a firearm. Guns were once a crucial survival tool, used to take down game for meat and to protect the country from the very real threat of foreign invaders (I’ll give the xenophobes out there a minute to rant about illegal immigrants taking our jobs. Dum-de-dum-de-dum. All set? Right, back at it then…). For the vast majority of Americans, neither starving for want of fresh venison nor the prospect of being conquered by the Spanish are pressing concerns anymore.
Second, I don’t care for John Q. American packing heat because it’s come to my attention that the general public are flaming morons. I offer as proof the fact that we actually have to pass laws that ban texting while driving because people can’t be trusted to figure out on their own that this sort of intense multi-tasking is an astoundingly bad idea.
So now, consider the prospect of people being allowed to tote their favorite firearm into a bar and, quite possibly, get hand-banging gut-wrenching two-fisted bare-chested manly kind of drunk. You know, the kind of drunk where that woman that, seven tequila shooters earlier, sort of reminded you of Truman Capote is now looking a lot like Amy Adams. The kind of drunk where this sort of conversation is perfectly plausible (scenario sugar-coated to mute the true horror, for the benefit of those with delicate sensibilities):
HAPLESS FOOL: Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
DRUNKY McGUNTOTER: What the &$@#&! do you mean by that, ya #?@%-face? Yeah, I know what you’re thinking, ya piece of stupid! You wanna go? Huh?! I got your (unintelligible) right here!
(BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!)
HAPLESS FOOL: AIIIIEEEE!
INNOCENT BYSTANDER: Egads! I am caught in a deadly hail of bullets! Save me, Jebus!
Second Amendment or no, shouldn’t we exercise a little common sense here? Who honestly thinks guns + booze = hunky-dory?
Restaurant owner Randy Rayburn, a Tennessee restaurateur who opposed the law, said this:
“I’m not worried about the 99% of gun owners who are permit holders. I’m worried about the 1 or 2% of would-be Dirty Harrys who are going to carry out their attempts at vigilante justice.”
That’s always been a concern of mine. I know a lot of gun owners who say they want to be able to carry a handgun just because they can. Seriously, that’s their only stated reason: the law says it’s cool, so they’re going to get the most out of it, by gum. I’ve also heard more than a few people say they carry for personal protection — a more reasonable justifcation.
But in the wake of 9/11, which changed everything, I started hearing people talking about the “need” to carry a gun just in case some random terrorism should break out. Seriously. That or to take down some nutbag who goes on a shooting spree in a mall, church, school, etc. (oh, the Irony Gods are such scamps!).
I have to say, I have yet to hear of a heroic citizen whipping out Ol’ Painless and taking down a crazed gunman thus saving dozens of lives. It’ll likely happen, but it’s more likely the headlines will read Well-Intentioned Idiot Makes Matters Worse.
The nation’s would-be John McClanes seem to think it’s an easy task to, in the middle of a high-stress combat-like situation, pull their weapon, aim, and fire with unerring accuracy at the person they want to hit, not any of the fear-stricken bystanders doing their damndest to get the hell out of Dodge with their skins intact. How many average people train with their weapon in such scenarios? They don’t, and unless they’re facing off against a disgruntled and immobile paper silhouette, the odds are grossly in favor of them, as stated above, only making matters worse.
Once again, take this theoretical situation of someone starting such chaos that it would impel a sober man to try and take down the bad guy with his trusty six-shooter, then add booze.
This would be a fine time for self-proclaimed “responsible” gun owners to speak up and admit that, for once, there is an inappropriate time and place for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should or have to.
Don’t worry, firearm fans — your gun will still be there in the morning.
Tags: gun control
The views and opinions in the Enterprise blogs are those of the author and are not neccessarily shared by Falmouth Publishing.
While I like Mike, I do not always agree with him on a lot of subjects. This one I do, no one should be allowed to have a loaded firearm inside a place where alcohol is served.
Government by common sense seemed to have lost it’s grip around the time I was born. Perhaps it’s my fault? Nah, I blame the baby boomers. They’re all losing their minds.
Couldn’t agree more heartily with you.
I’d simply add that the legendary Tombstone, AZ – the epitome of crazed gun violence in the wildest days of the West – didn’t begin to clean up until a “check yer firearms at the door” policy was strictly enforced. Do today’s weak-kneed puppet legislators have a greater store of practical wisdom than legendary lawman Wyatt Earp? I think not..!
While Mike is certainly entitled to your own opinions on concealed carry for citizens, you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Almost 40 years after Florida passed their CCW law there are now well-over a million citizens legally carrying handguns in 48 states. In Indiana alone over 350,000 residents currently have CCW permits. In some counties almost 30 percent of Hoosiers have a carry license.
Nationwide, there have been no law enforcement officials, no school, or church shot up by any person with a CCW. There’s been no “Dodge City shootouts”, no instances of the guns being taken away and used by the badguys, no rise in accident levels, and no prisons full of CCW holders who shot otherwise innocent people willy-nilly.
We go about our business quietly and calmly, while occasionally defending ourselves against criminal predators. The vast majority of the states that allow carry also have virtually the same identical laws that Tennessee and Arizona just passed allowing carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. Again, no problems have been reported for decades. None. Nada.
You forecast terrible things but I have one question: Why have none of the doom, gloom, and scary stories you present not come true in any state that has passed a CCW law? Not one.
If there really was “blood on the streets” from any of these states certainly you would use actual statistics and stories instead of blanket meaningless phrases that sound horrific.
It is no longer intellectually honest for journalists to continue to falsely predict what “tragedies” might happen – instead, it is the duty of all responsible journalists to report what actually has happened. I challenge Mike to do so. Otherwise, like Dan Rather insisting upon his version of the “truth” on those fabricated papers, you’ll certainly lose your credibility to those who know the real truth.
Mike sez: The nation’s would-be John McClanes seem to think it’s an easy task to, in the middle of a high-stress combat-like situation, pull their weapon, aim, and fire with unerring accuracy at the person they want to hit, not any of the fear-stricken bystanders doing their damndest to get the hell out of Dodge with their skins intact. How many average people train with their weapon in such scenarios? They don’t, and unless they’re facing off against a disgruntled and immobile paper silhouette, the odds are grossly in favor of them, as stated above, only making matters worse.
Jack replies: And isn’t it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work, and without the anointed ones’ guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?
Like they say: When you’re sick you go to a car mechanic; when you’re in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about guns, you go to Mr. Mike.
Mike sez: I have to say, I have yet to hear of a heroic citizen whipping out Ol’ Painless and taking down a crazed gunman thus saving dozens of lives. It’ll likely happen, but it’s more likely the headlines will read Well-Intentioned Idiot Makes Matters Worse.
Jack replies: Don’t let your ignorance lead you astray, son. Here’s a very well noted case that made major headlines. And it is only one of quite a few. Now… you match it with one where you think you can find where a CCW holder made things “worse”.
Surely you remember reading about the church member who volunteered to keep watch on Sunday when the crazy guy was shooting up Christians in Colorado. He came into the church… gunned down several people before she shot him back and stopped him. Her pastor said she saved a hundred lives with her actions.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
The author of this piece is either an outright shill and liar, or the biggest idiot ever.
What does it matter where a law-abiding, licensed CCW holder carries his weapon? Why should it matter if the establishment serves alcohol or food? Most states – I’d even go so far as to say all – that issue CCW permits for their citizens have zero-tolerance for alcohol in the blood while carrying.
Get that?
Even a dose of cough syrup is enough alcohol in your blood for you to lose your permit, lose your weapon, and probably spend the night in jail.
I think the blatant fear mongering coupled with the authors chatty writing style, poor attention to grammar and lack of journalistic integrity show that he is more than likely the biggest idiot ever, as opposed to a liar/shill.
Well, if the flaming idiots who write these articles would READ the laws, they would recognize two things 1) it is already ILLEGAL for a person who is armed, concealed or openly to be carrying a firearm to consume alcohol 2) these laws RE-ENFORCE that position. Besides, where do you have any evidence that because there is a law against carrying a gun in such establishments that criminals dont break the laws already? Why arent you all screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling, there may be a criminal in this bar carrying a gun? What a bunch of hypocrites!
To top this all off, such FLAMING FEARMONGERING is nothing more rhetoric than listening to chicken little or the boy who cried wolf claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling when it comes to FEELING safe. If you people are so SCARED of what MIGHT happen, two suggestions, stay home or move to a country where the government is all powerful!
Every cry from the anti-gunners whenever a removal of restrictions occurrs is that THERE WILL BE BLOOD in the streets. Geez, how long you going to beat a dead horse when you have NO EVIDENCE that horse EVER EXISTED?
On top of that, it is readily apparent none of you chicken littles have ever been assaulted with a deadly weapon. Four times in my life, if I hadnt had a weapon, (flashed 3 times, drew once), then those wannabe crooks carrying the baseball bats, tire irons, and a couple knifes sure would have respected my rights and not harmed me or my family. In no single one of those cases was I doing anything illegal (by inherent rights interpetation) nor was I the instigator.
So unless you can guarantee 100% that no further attacks will occur, that the police will be there 24/7 to protect me and my family, guess I will take the responsibility and be prepared. Yep, I will be one of those millions whose gun didnt kill anyone again today. More than you can say for all the 1 million gang members who by the 2008 National Gang Activity Report, were responsible for up to 80% of violent crime in the US.
Rather than bleat, like sheeple, wasting your time crying about the law abiding, how in the hell about doing something constructive like attacking those 1 million gang members and working on a REAL problem, rather than some imaginary one the MIGHT happen, or are you going to continue to be a HAPLESS SOCIALIST ZOMBIE?
YOU say you dont think guns and alcohol mix and dont want to see them carried by licensed citizens into restaurants even though such a person can not drink an alcoholic beverage by law. Well..ok…then I am sure you feel the same way about off duty police carrying when they run up a .20 BAC. Bar tenders and taven owners have directly or indirectly caused more misadventures and mayhem than most any licensed gun owner (or anyone else,for that matter) could do even if they tried. To all you antigunnuts the term is HYPOCRITE
A quick note for everyone talking about my lack of journalistic integrity: this here isn’t journalism; it’s a blog, wherein I get to opine and editorialize to my heart’s content. You want journalism, you can read what I write for the paper. In fact, all of you should sign up for subscriptions, post-haste.
Jarhead: Define “socialist.” I must insist that anyone who tosses that term around actually knows what it means.
Johnmcv : Logical fallacy. Your argument is essentially that gun owners should be allowed to carry because bartenders over-serving customers have caused more problems. That fails to address the merits of my premise that armed individuals imbibing alcohol poses a potential hazard to the safety and well-being of others.
James: Me fail English? That’s unpossible!
Jack Burton: Fear-mongering? Predictions of doom that never come? There are those Irony God again. I dare say that many gun proponents’ arguments are built upon these foundations: I MIGHT get attacked by a dangerous person who wants to do me grievous harm, so I should be allowed to carry JUST IN CASE I need to defend myself. You say you have defended yourself with your gun? Then you are the exception, not the rule. I’ve been in the news game 11 years and have yet to report of even one person in our coverage area thwarting a criminal act because he was armed, and odds are in that time period, it should have happened at least once.
If you or anyone has hard, objective data to the contrary, I would like to see it (and I do not say that defiantly, I mean, really, I’d like to see it).
Plus: Egg Shen was totally the hero. You were the comic relief.
*G* I disagree: Wang Chi was the hero. Egg Shen was the mentor.
Hey Micky…no where did I say I thought people carrying guns (legal or otherwise) should be allowed to consume alcohol . There is an old hunters saying that gunpowder and alcohol do not mix and Im inclined to believe this. The thing is…if citizens who have a legal right to carry but do not have the right to consume while carrying can not enter a restaurant/tavern while packing then that edict should extend to POlice. As a matter of fact,one reads more articles about police getting involved in baro0m brawls and off duty guns being drawn (and used) than licensed citizens. At any rate,where it says “NO GUNS” is where I wont be. 73s
Mike sez: …it’s a blog, wherein I get to opine and editorialize to my heart’s content. You want journalism, you can read what I write for the paper.
Jack replies: Hmmmm… this is not the first time that an alledged “journalist” has told me that if he is presenting “opinion” that the facts just don’t matter. I just don’t seem to remenmber that from J school but perhaps I’m old fashioned.
Mike sez: Fear-mongering? Predictions of doom that never come? There are those Irony God again.
Jack replies: You deny that’s what you were doing? Risky move since I know that Al Gore invented scroll back along with the ‘net and we can all just take a moment to read your own words.
Mike sez: I dare say that many gun proponents’ arguments are built upon these foundations: I MIGHT get attacked by a dangerous person who wants to do me grievous harm, so I should be allowed to carry JUST IN CASE I need to defend myself.
Jack replies: And we MIGHT have a house fire so is it “fear mongering” to encourage home owners to have fire extinguisher JUST IN CASE? And we MIGHT have burglars so is it “fear mongering” to encourage home owners to have door locks JUST IN CASE? And we MIGHT have a flat tire so is it “fear mongering” to encourage car owners to have a spare tire JUST IN CASE?
Are you willing to deny the fact that crime happens? Quite often? And to quite a few people? But it really isn’t the “odds” that matter, is it. If we just save ONE PERSONS life than it is a good thing, eh.
Mike sez: You say you have defended yourself with your gun? Then you are the exception, not the rule.
Jack replies: I never said that. But if I did of course I’d be the “exception”. The same as the person who claims damage to his home on his insurance policy is the “exception” and not the rule. Otherwise the insurance companies would go broke very fast. But would you use that that an argument that homeowners insurance is somehow an unneccessary item since so few people actually use it?
And then ask your local police force how many of them have used a gun in the performance of their duties. If it turns out that they are the normal police dept. and very few have actually done so, are you going to insist that they be disarmed since it’s the “exception” and not the rule that they actually need a gun?
And I’d bet my mortgage that the percentage of readers your paper has proves that the average reader is the “exception” in the community, not the rule. Does that mean that your paper is published in vain?
Mike sez: I’ve been in the news game 11 years and have yet to report of even one person in our coverage area thwarting a criminal act because he was armed, and odds are in that time period, it should have happened at least once.
Jack replies: Mike, son, as I advised earlier, don’t let your personal ignorance lead you astray. And here ya go again, doing the very same thing over again.
Here are dozens of fully documented, recent stories from Mass. where average people just like me and you “thwarted a criminal act” because they were armed.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/MA.html
And the reality of it is that most of the self-defense cases don’t wind up in either the police blotter or the newspaper. If no shots are fired, it’s not visibly public, and there are no real information they can provide the police, many gun owners just let it ride so they don’t get caught up in the legal system — particularly in places like your state where the only real choice that most law abiding citizens have to protect themselves is to carry without “permission” from the state.
Mike sez: If you or anyone has hard, objective data to the contrary, I would like to see it (and I do not say that defiantly, I mean, really, I’d like to see it).
Jack replies: You can start here with the free downloadable book, Gun Facts, Fully documented with hundreds of cites and footnotes — it just may prove to be the most upsetting to your beliefs book that you’ll ever read…
http://www.gunfacts.info
Mike sez: Plus: Egg Shen was totally the hero. You were the comic relief.
Jack replies: Of course. It’s a constant reminder not to take myself too seriously.
And as a P.S….Here are a few comments from Police officials who started out preaching against CCW but converted after having seen years of evidence that it really does work. Again… how professional are YOU willing to be about the issue?
“Glenn White, president of the 2,350-member Dallas Police Association, said he lobbied against the (shall-issue) law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. ‘That hasn’t happened,’ he said. ‘All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen,’ said Senior Cpl. White, a patrol officer who works the 3-to-11 p.m. shift. ‘No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.’”
“Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated…have been unfounded or mitigated.” – Fairfax County, Virginia Police Major Bill Brown.
“The concerns that I had – with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons – we haven’t experienced that.” – Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina Police Chief Dennis Nowicki
“The Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill, saying that more guns would mean more incidences of gun-related injuries. Craig Birdwhistell, executive director of the association, said so far that hasn’t happened. ‘No, we haven’t experienced the problems that some of our chiefs of police have anticipated,’ he said.”
“‘I have changed my opinion of this (program),’ Campbell County (Kentucky) Sheriff John Dunn said. ‘Frankly, I anticipated a certain type of people applying to carry firearms, people I would be uncomfortable with being able to carry a concealed weapon. That has not been the case. These are all just everyday citizens who feel they need some protection.’”
“…Lt. William Burgess of the Calhoun County (Michigan) Sheriff Department said ‘to the best of my knowledge, we have not had an issue.’ Burgess admitted he is surprised. ‘I had expected there would be a lot more problems,’ he said. ‘But it has actually worked out.’”
“As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” – John B. Holmes, District Attorney, Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston).
“…Louisiana Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bucky Rives, who expressed concern about the law before it passed, said he hasn’t heard anything about the effect of the law – good or bad. ‘So far, I guess, so good,’ Rives said. ‘I cringed when they passed the law, but I stand corrected thus far.’
“‘The truth is, I don’t know that there has been a change one way or the other here or anywhere else,’ said Anoka County (Minnesota) Sheriff Bruce Andersohn. ‘We had one side that swore the world would be safer, we’d be in better condition, we’d have a fall in crime. That’s not a reality. The other side was that this would be the Wild West with a shooting on every corner. Well, I’m not seeing that, either.’”
“…Oakland County (Michigan) Prosecutor David Gorcyca said most (concealed weapon permit) violations are minor, for infractions such as being intoxicated while carrying a weapon or carrying a weapon without a license. ‘We haven’t seen a huge increase in offenses,’ he said. ‘It’s already been three years. I don’t think we’ll ever see any increases.’”
“‘We have not seen, in Michigan, that people get out their guns and start blasting each other,’” said Matt Davis, of the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. ‘It appears the new law is working
“‘What we’ve found is there’s been no significant increase in crime, because the people getting permits are law-abiding people,’ said Katie Bower, one of the administrators of Michigan’s 2001 concealed-carry law. ‘There have been a few cases where we’ve had problems, but it’s not statistically significant.’”
“‘Everyone who looks at this who was anticipating more violence sees that the numbers of problems is (sic) very small,’ said Kim Eddie, assistant executive secretary of the Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council, a state agency. ‘Both sides see that.’”
“In my professional experience in South Dakota, a ‘shall-issue’ concealed-carry state where permits are issued to anyone who can pass a background check, I have never had-nor heard of-any problems with a person legally carrying a concealed pistol.” – South Dakota municipal patrol officer, Adrian Alan
“‘There was concern here initially that more officers would be killed or more officers would be drawing on people who didn’t announce right away that they were carrying,’ says Kym Koch at the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. ‘We haven’t seen that.’”
“‘The people that go through all the effort to get a pistol permit seldom get into any trouble with the police,’ Fulton County (Georgia) Police Maj. Terry Mulkey said.
“‘We haven’t seen any cases where a permit holder has committed an offense with a firearm,’ (the Covington, Kentucky police chief) said. ”Licensing is not the problem relating to firearms.’”
“Sgt. Tom Keller, who helped usher in the (Nevada) law during the two years he spent with the Police Department’s concealed-weapons detail, said he couldn’t recall any cases during his watch ‘where there was inappropriate use of a CCW (permit).’ Nor could his boss at the time, Lt. Bill Cavagnaro. ‘I don’t recall anybody getting in any trouble,’ he says. ‘It seems to me most people who had the CCWs acted responsibly.’”
“‘We feel the program has done very well over the past 10 years,’ said Sgt. Bill Whalen, supervisor of the (Arizona) DPS Concealed Weapon Permit Unit. ‘The program has served as a model for other states.’ There has been no analysis of whether the concealed-weapon law has had any effect on crime, Whalen said, but nearly everything he’s heard points to the vast majority of permit holders as responsible gun owners focused on safety. ‘All the people who get concealed weapon permits are law-abiding citizens. These are the people who aren’t getting in trouble,’ Whalen said. ‘The people who don’t care for laws, in general, don’t get permits.’”
“A lot of the critics argued that the law-abiding citizens couldn’t be trusted, nor were they responsible enough to avoid shooting a stranger over a minor traffic dispute. But the facts do speak for themselves. None of these horror stories have materialized.” – Sheriff David Williams, Tarrant County, Texas
“I think that says something, that we’ve gotten to this point in the year and in the thirdlargest city in America (Houston) there has not been a single charge against anyone that had anything to do with a concealed handgun.” – Harris County (Texas) District Attorney John Holmes
“Florida has the longest track record, and officials there maintain that the state has encountered few problems with concealed weapons. ‘It’s not the old Wild West that everyone predicted, with shoot-outs at traffic lights,’ says John Russi, director of the licensing division in Florida’s Department of State. ‘It just didn’t materialize.’”
“‘I haven’t seen any problems from people carrying weapons. And we haven’t had more crime broken up because people have weapons,’ said Lt. M. E. Frank of the Virginia State Police division, which supervises 14 counties in that state.’”
“‘I haven’t seen any problems because of’ the law, (West Virginia Chief Sheriff’s Deputy Larry Stephens) said. ‘Most of the problems we have is (sic) with people who aren’t going to get a permit anyway.’”
“Concealed handgun permits have been available in New Mexico for nearly a year, and so far, about 2,000 state residents have chosen to pay hundreds of dollars for a license to keep a hidden, loaded weapon. When the state Legislature enacted the permit law last year, some people said it would make them feel safer and deter crime. Others, including those who unsuccessfully challenged the law at the state Supreme Court, said concealed guns would increase public fear. But law-enforcement officers in Santa Fe County say the new law has no noticeable impact.
“Cabarrus (North Carolina) Sheriff Robert Canaday said the county’s crime rate had been falling before the new concealed-weapons law passed. ‘I haven’t seen any impact whatsoever,’ Canaday said. ‘We haven’t had any incidents where these folks who have the permits have done anything wrong, and you can’t draw any correlation between concealed-weapons permits and the crime rate.’”
“When the state’s concealed weapons law was passed in 1996, critics said it would turn South Carolina into Dodge City. Although a few abuses have been recorded, law enforcement officials say the program has been effective for the most part and is growing in popularity. …Former Gov. David Beasley signed the concealed gun bill into law in 1996 after heated debate in the Legislature. At the time, critics said it would just add trouble to the state’s gun culture. But (state police captain Joe) Dorton said very few permit holders have abused the privilege since the law was enacted.”
“…there haven’t been reports of people with concealed handgun permits getting in trouble with their guns, even though critics of the law predicted there would be problems. ‘I haven’t heard of any (problems),’ said Sgt. Michael Noel, supervisor of daily operations in the (Louisiana) State Police’s concealed handgun section.”
The first amendment allows you to write this article of your personal opinion and me to comment. The second amendment makes sure our first amendment right remains.
Your parnoia and incorrect assumptions are based on a mutation of some old western you once watched. Grow up. No one wants to shoot anyone and no one wants to get shot. Criminals are what you should be on the look out for, they have this bad habit of ignoring the law. Be thankful that some day a CCW holder may save your life instead of some policeman documenting you and the crime that happened to you.
Jack, I fail to see where in my original post I’m reporting hard news, aside from linking to the story that sparked this. I expressed opinions, thoughts, and feelings to provoke a discussion. I’m not just pulling non-facts out of my butt (“Everyone knows 68 percent of all statistics are made up”) and presenting it as hard objective data.
Before you go questioning my journalistic integrity, perhaps you should review even a fraction of the material that has seen print in my paper over the past decade-plus. If I were wont to make crap up, I’d either be out of the industry a long time ago or the defendant in lord knows how many libel lawsuits. One blog post you disagree with does not a condemnation of my entire career make.
On another note, the blog you linked to I think supports my theory quite nicely — all the crimes committed in 2009 and only two documented instances in which someone successfully defended themselves? That suggests that such instances are very much the exception than the rule.
Your earlier link to the Colorado Springs incident is also supportive of one of my earlier arguments, because if you’ll notice, the woman who opened fire had law-enforcement experience. That means training, something many many people do not have. She was prepared by professionals how to handle such a situation. I do not trust the majority of the public to react with such intelligence, thoughtfulness, or steely reserve. I expect them to panic, because that is their instinct.
As for the notion that owning a gun is in the same ballpark as having a fire extinguisher or a spare tire, all these actions are in fact driven by a level of fear, reasonable and unreasonable. I think if your concerns over being placed in a situation where pulling and possibly using a firearm to take a human life are so great, I cannot help but feel that your life must be a non-stop terror ride, for which I pity you, or you live in an incredibly dangerous neighborhood and need to move someplace where you can walk down the street without constantly looking over your shoulder.
I suggest Wareham. That’s a nice boring town.
Mikey,
Yep, guns are bad, shouldn’t be allowed. Because after all there’s always a cop around when you need one. Folks probably shouldn’t own fire extinguishers either, because we pay taxes for a fire department, don’t we, and people really can’t be trusted to use them correctly. And why bother learning CPR or the Heimlich when we have EMT service too. We’ll all just watch while you turn blue waiting for trained help to arrive. We should all absolutely surrender any personal responsibility and put our trust in government services to take care of us. Anything else is just paranoid and silly right?
Check on typical response times to critical 911 calls in your neighborhood (anywhere from 5 minutes to over an hour depending on your area) then tell me again why I must depend on someone else to eventually show up to save me from an immediate threat.
As the old saying goes, When seconds count the cops are only minutes away.
Micky……for a 17 year old, unlike your peers, you have a pretty good grasp of the English language.
It was only a matter of time before the childish insults flew. Congrats to Johnmcv for tossing the first one.
Statistically, CCW holders are many times less likely to commit a crime than your average citizen. It’s safer to be around CCW holders than it is non CCW folks. It may make you uncomfortable, but you are safer.
Who the hell is Micky? Dolenz? Mouse? Hargitay? No Mickys around here.
And 17 years old? Where’s that coming from? Is that just a woefully desperate attempt to diminish the legitimacy of my thoughts and opinions that you disagree with because you don’t have a solid basis for a contrary argument? Get it everyone? I’m a teenager, ergo I have no idea what I’m talking about! That’s called an ad hominem argument.
Jeez, I may disagree with Jack Burton, but he’s at least interested in engaging in a debate rather than name-calling and laughable accusations of illiteracy on my part…I mean, really, John, look at your previous posts…your grasp of punctuation is wretched.
You want to offer other perspectives? Please do. But at least attempt to elevate the tone of the room.
Yes, guns are just like fire extinguishers because everyone knows how many people are killed each year due to fire extinguishers. In fact, the number of fire extinguisher-related deaths is absolutely staggering. And CPR! My god, don’t get me started. I can’t walk home without the fear of someone jumping me from a dark alley and giving me CPR. I knew these things were supposed to save lives, but I had no idea it could end innocent lives, too…
It’s absolutely crazy that we allow bars to have parking lots.
Drinking and driving do not mix. You can’t deny it.
Yet we have places where people get stinking drunk and they have full parking lots.
There is no need to drive to a bar. Leave your car home (it’ll be there in the morning), and take a taxi.
There is no mention of cars in the Constitution, so don’t tell me there is a right to have a car to drive anywhere you want.
Mike sez: The nation’s would-be John McClanes seem to think it’s an easy task to, in the middle of a high-stress combat-like situation, pull their weapon, aim, and fire with unerring accuracy at the person they want to hit, not any of the fear-stricken bystanders doing their damndest to get the hell out of Dodge with their skins intact.
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill and innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. (C. Cramer, and D. Kopel “Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994)
Grizzly, could you place those statistics within the context of the total numbers of, respectively, police shootings and citizen shootings? If the number of times a cop fires in the line of duty is on par with the number of times a regular joe opens fire in a self-defense scenario, then the number are indeed telling.
However, if the numbers are greatly disproportionate themselves in favor of the police, then that would suggest the law of averages in effect: police fire their guns far more, therefore the number of incidental casualties is higher.
“I’ll preface this by saying I am not a big fan of the general public owning guns. I say this first because the average person has no need for a firearm.”
I’ll preface this by saying I am not a big fan of the general public owning an Mercedes. I say this first because the average person has no need for a luxury car. My statement is more reasonable because driving is a privilege not a right (except on your own property).
“Guns were once a crucial survival tool, used to take down game for meat and to protect the country from the very real threat of foreign invaders”
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about protecting this country from enemies, both foreign and domestic and defending against a Tyrannical Government. Please take a look around at how Tyrannical the Government has become over the last 20 years. There are many people that hunt and grow their own food for their sustenance.
“Second, I don’t care for John Q. American packing heat because it’s come to my attention that the general public are flaming morons.”
I don’t care much for John Q. American being able to post articles that are based only on emotions and not facts. Since you are part of the general public, it nice to see you know that you are a flaming moron. It’s nice to see that you don’t let facts get in the way of your agenda.
“So now, consider the prospect of people being allowed to tote their favorite firearm into a bar and, quite possibly, get hand-banging gut-wrenching two-fisted bare-chested manly kind of drunk.”
As has been pointed out, drinking and carrying a firearms is illegal. If someone is going to break this law do you really think they’ll obey a law about where they can carry a firearm?
As a CCW holder, I should be far more afraid of you than you are of me. You are 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW permit holders. You are 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than CCW permit holders. (“An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population”, William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999)
>> I’ll preface this by saying I am not a big fan of the general public owning an Mercedes. I say this first because the average person has no need for a luxury car. My statement is more reasonable because driving is a privilege not a right (except on your own property).
I hate ‘em too and I agree there’s no need for anyone to own a gas guzzler when so many more efficient models are available.
However, the “right” to own firearms exists mostly out of habit; the amendment has been around so long we accept it part of everyday life, just like we accept cigarettes as part of life even though they’ve long been established as lethal. Habit and money keep things around far longer than they deserve to be.
>>The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about protecting this country from enemies, both foreign and domestic and defending against a Tyrannical Government.
So how many coups have you lead? If the government has been as tyrannical over the past 20 years as you say, where’s the coup d’etat?
>> I don’t care much for John Q. American being able to post articles that are based only on emotions and not facts.
Ah, so you don’t support First Amendment rights? But the Second Amendment exists to defend the First Amendment. Another poster said so. So by owning a gun you by default defend my right to free speech.
My agenda? Ho ho. Yes, I am so powerful that people bend to my every word and right now my secret army is en route to the Smith & Wesson factory to carry out my will. For I am mighty. Fear me.
Oh, wait…you do! Win!
The basic criticism of this article is irrelevant because the laws that allow people to carry into restaurants do not allow them to possess the gun while actually drinking. Since the law does not allow what you are criticizing you cannot criticize the law. Anyway, about 30 other states already allow people who have concealed carry licenses to carry into restaurants (New York, California, New Jersey among them) and they have experienced no problems.
As usual, liberalization of gun laws isn’t going to cause the predicted mayhem because the people causing mayhem with guns are already disobeying the laws.
Wait, I thought gun nuts hated anything liberal.
Aww, now I’m all confused!
(Yes, I am just poking you with a stick at this point.)
Mike, is that all you can refute?
Socialist (singular) or the term Socialism, has multiple meanings depending on what you choose to believe. The core belief is that societies economic system of capitalism is unfair to the people and that wealth, opportunity, yada, yada would be more fair for everyone if everything were distributed evenly. Then you have the version of Socialism that mandates state control of everything, including ones inherent rights as was inspired by our famous comrades in Russia, where total government control was dictated, and enforced by violent and brutal force. You might recall that the KGB and their predecessors had a well earned reputation for making people disappear for real, but more often “imagined” offenses, or didnt 20 million die under Stalins version of Socialism? In either case, Socialism means in this context, total control by the state, as well as their propoganda instrument called the media, and as such, is what I inferred to earlier! My reference comes from the A received orally arguing the merits and failures of communism versus capitalism in my senior philosophy class (albeit 35 years ago) with a professor who was an avowed, practicing communist, If that isnt sufficient, cant help ya there!
As for DGU’s “Defensive Gun Uses” not ocurring in any frequency, well hope you like the taste of crow, but my experiences arent unique, or uncommon.
Professor Kleck, a noted criminoligist produced a study in 1997 that identified 2.5 DGU’s occurring yearly. The main weakness of his study is his sample size, of which he admits. Limited samples sizes in statistical studies produce random variations that are hard to identify or quantify. The anti’s not wishing to be shown up (The Joyce Foundation), sponsored a study by Ludwig & Cook presented in 2000 as an attempt to discredit Klecks 1997 study.
In their review, Ludwig & Cook didnt agree with Kleck’s 2.5 million DGU but did agrre that there without there reduction, there were around a 1.5 million DGU’s. Then because of their, I believe “second” question of the survey (I read both studies) results, Ludwig & Cook claimed a large percentage of these 1.5 million DGU’s were discounted as “False Positives” aka inaccurate data! The question asked of the interviewee was “Were you attacked during the incident” and most honestly answered “no” we were not physically attacked because the used their firearm. Pardon me, but the DGU did occur, yet Ludwig & Cook discounted that data as not occurring. Please explain Mike how is that this data was then logically removed from consideration in this study? As it is, Ludwig & Cook, both ferverent anti-gun appostles, still agreed that at least 108,000 DGU’s occured yearly. Note: does anyone ever pay for a study that doesnt mirror the results they want portrayed, lol?
So one has limited sample size, one uses flawed common sense logic to discount data. So Mike, unless you can prove or disprove either of these studies, they still repesent that somewhere between 108,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s occur on a yearly basis.
My experience is that whenever two such extreme views collide, that the extreme numbers provided by either side, in this case the DGU debate, that the real data is usually somewhere in the middle, ya know around that 1.5 million DGU’s. As 1.5 million DGU’s exceeds 447,000 violent crimes with firearms and USDOJ Victimization survey identifies 75% of violent crimes are not reported, doesnt it seem coincidental that 447,000 increased by that 75% non reported factor (3 times actually) is around 1.7 million?
Hell, even the Clinton administration in 1997 agreed that an average of 1.5 million DGU’s probably occurred on a yearly basis, prove otherwise Mike. As one real fact remains, just because you Mike do not see the wind blowing, doesnt mean it doesnt exist!
Care to review this link http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ and all the civilian DGU’s that occur that are listed there?
My own experience is the same as the USDOJ Vistimization survey, they werent reported to the police. Have you ever had 3 young men approach and start to encircle you and your friend, and as they drew closer in their flanking move, pull their weapons (ball bat, knifes) in preparation of assaulting us? I easily recognised what they were doing (military training and common sense), I smiled, and before they got too close, swept my jacket to the side revealing my hand on my Glock 22 on my hip, and those wayward boys got the message and immeadiately retreated and left. I saw their truck pull out, but I did not follow, nor attempt to get their license plate number. All based on the stupid laws at that time requiring one to retreat when threatened. Plus it is stupid to chase someone who may themselves have a firearm in their vehicle and no harm had been done. As a result, I did not report that incident, much less the other three, as what would they have been succesfully prosecuted for anyway in our failed liberalized court system?
Already referenced the FBI data from 2004 I believe that identified 447,000 of that years reported violent crimes involved firearms. That left oh what, 1 million plus reported violent crimes that didnt involve a firearm! Same problem jolly old England is facing now, but their murders and violent crime didnt drop, it increased. By the way, England is a very good comparison as they are so similar in base laws, culture and such to the US.
England banned guns in 1997, VCR Violent Crime Rate 820 per 100k (56 mill pop.) or about 445k VCR, 2007 2,333 VCR per 100k (60 mill pop). England had 1.4 million VCR’s while the US (200 mill pop 2007) had 1.4 million VCR’s. Lest we forget all the prosecutions of British subject (only citizens can be truly free) who defended themselves against criminal acts. One would think that if gun control ever had an effect on reducing crime, it would have appeared here, but sure as hell hasnt. By the way Mike, what is the cost of that additional 955k aggravated assaults, rapes and such on the British society? I guess you Mike would like to try a similiar experiment here in the US? P.S. When reviewing their data at the British Home Office, you must add in the violent sexual offenses as the US data includes that in their rate system!
As for fear, I do not fear attack, I am prepared, I am responsible for myself and accept that responsibility. You claim yourselves to be afraid of me the law abiding CCW holder, yet why arent you exclaiming your fear for the criminals who already do what you are oh so worried about in this “lol, Blog”? Clinical and Forensic psychiatry have multiple definitions for these irrational unsubstantiated fears, we tend to simplfy and call it what it is, a Napoleonic complex or hypocorsiy, you choose!
You choose, that is prophetic as it really boils down to this simple statement, you choose not to accept responsibility for your safety, we choose to accept responsibility for our own safety. Those who do not accept this responsibility could do us a favor though. Since the nanny state you prefer wont be there to protect you, could you all wear a sign saying that you are a gun free zone and do not wish our rights to infringe on your feeling safe. In turn, we gun owners who concealed carry will promise not to interfere with anyone attacking you thereby simplifying the choice we would make!
So until you have valid proof we are the problem and can refute our position with unbiased data all I have commented above, save your your retorts for sprinkling on that crow pie your getting ready to eat!
Mike,
You really need to research a topic before you write about it and show the world you have no clue of the subject at hand. As others mentioned, the USDOJ has determined that there are 1 – 2 million plus defensive gun uses per year by private citizens. This is more than all police combined.
I personally have defended myself against criminal attack twice in my life, both times with a firearm, Once with a pistol and the other time a 12 gauge shotgun. I thank God that I didn’t have to pull the trigger either time, the knowledge that I was armed and ready to defend myself was enough to break off the attack. This is far more common than you think it is. Nobody has the right to take away my means of protected myself and my family because they think they have all the answers.
Also, as others have mentioned, permit holders who are carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol are NOT allowed to drink, not even one beer. So, you argument starts from a false premise and continues downhill from there.
Hey, someone who actually knows what socialism is. That’s a refreshing change of pace.
>>In either case, Socialism means in this context, total control by the state, as well as their propoganda instrument called the media, and as such, is what I inferred to earlier!
Wait, you got an “A” and you don’t even know the difference between “imply” and “infer”? Boy, must have been one of them East Coast liberal schools that don’t like to quash free thinking.
So, interesting arguments all around. Keep them going! See, I’m just sitting here watching the page hit counter spin like an odometer on a Formula One racer. I’m not interested in winning what is a no-win argument; you’re not going to convince me that the general public can be trusted with lethal weaponry and I’m not going to convince you that you’re wrong wrong so very wrong in your thinking.
(Yep, still poking with the stick.)
I posted to provoke discussion, and I’ve done that, in spades. I’m not so naive I actually thought I’d see, “By God, you’re right! I’ve seen the error of my ways and will immediately turn my gun in and become a hippie peacenik!” No no, that’s just silly. So go put your crow pie on the windowsill to cool. Maybe someone else will want it.
PS: You keep saying my name over and over and I’m gonna start to think you’re sweet on me or somethin’.
The problem is, you THINK you are right and we are WRONG, but you are incorrect, it is just the opposite. Every creature on this earth has a natural right to defend itself. Because man is able to think and create, the best thing we have come up with so far is the firearm. The firearm gives women, the elderly and the infirm a level field when a 200+ pound loser decides he wants what they got. Get it?
but its ok to drink 20 beers and drive home huh.
>> you THINK you are right and we are WRONG, but you are incorrect, it is just the opposite.
And thus Mr. Bailey’s prior point is proved for him. Thanks, Bill, you’re today’s object lesson in How To Argue Like A Five-Year-Old.
Does that mean I get to call you Mickey now?
So Mike, are you going to really act like the intellectual you presume that you are and read the links and facts on CCW and DGU’s?
…Or do you just like like to sit around stirring the pot?
You do know that Tombstone is in Arizona, where this law was recently passed, don’t you? In AZ there are firearms out on the streets carried openly and concealed. Although you hear about all kinds of violence that illegal aliens kidnap and attack people you don’t hear about massive attacks of Americans gunning down Illegals. Law abiding people simply do not “attack” over some imaginary or perceived social tort the way criminals do.
It was nice of you to try and turn all American citizens into Xenophobes without showing us how you leapt to that brilliant conclusion.
This is the perfect time for all responsible firearms owners to say, once again; I am exercising my rights, there is no place that the government can take those away from me. I am an American citizen and can ans will exercise my rights at every opportunity because that is what keeps this country free.
If you own a firearm please join the NRA, GOA, or JPFO. There are people in the media and right next door to you that want to see you become a criminal. They want to criminalize the passive ownership of firearms. They want you defenseless in the face of aggression. They will never stop attacking your human rights.
If you don’t like guns just don’t buy or shoot them!
“I’ll keep my freedom, my money and my guns. You keep the change!”
Around 35 states allow CCW in restaurants that serve alcohol. Some including Nevada allow it in bars. Guess what no problem, so emotional panty wetting left wing liberals, your rants are false by living proof every day here in the USA.
Mike sez: Jack, I fail to see where in my original post I’m reporting hard news, aside from linking to the story that sparked this. I expressed opinions, thoughts, and feelings to provoke a discussion.
Jack replies: Yes… and the lady who writes a letter to the editor expressing her displeasure at the way the innocent unicorns are being mistreated down at the local circus is merely expression opinions also. At this point in time your credibility is about the same as hers.
Mike sez: I’m not just pulling non-facts out of my butt (”Everyone knows 68 percent of all statistics are made up”) and presenting it as hard objective data.
Jack replies:
Really? Lets take a look…
“…the average person has no need for a firearm.”
And your “factual” basis for this “fact” is….?
“…it’s come to my attention that the general public are flaming morons.”
And your “factual” basis for this “fact” is….?
“So now, consider the prospect of people being allowed to tote their favorite firearm into a bar and, quite possibly, get hand-banging gut-wrenching two-fisted bare-chested manly kind of drunk.”
And your “factual” basis for this being likely to happen is….?
“The nation’s would-be John McClanes seem to think it’s an easy task to, in the middle of a high-stress combat-like situation, pull their weapon, aim, and fire with unerring accuracy at the person they want to hit,”
And your “factual” basis for knowing what the CCW holders “seem to think” is…?
“.. unless they’re facing off against a disgruntled and immobile paper silhouette, the odds are grossly in favor of them, as stated above, only making matters worse.”
And your “factual” basis for knowing this is…?
You stated each and every sentence as a “fact.” You might want to give a lame attempt to justify each as an “opinion” but there is not a single “I think…” or “It might seem…” in there. YOU gave bald, factual statements… and you don’t have a single thing to back them up with.
Mike sez: Before you go questioning my journalistic integrity, perhaps you should review even a fraction of the material that has seen print in my paper over the past decade-plus. If I were wont to make crap up, I’d either be out of the industry a long time ago or the defendant in lord knows how many libel lawsuits. One blog post you disagree with does not a condemnation of my entire career make.
Jack replies: Decade-plus, eh? That’s barely past the apprentice stage. And… please note, Dear Readers, that Mike is trying to set up a strawman argument here. No one that I know of has accused him of “making stuff up” in his writing for the newspaper. But he sets it up and argues against it as “evidence” that he doesn’t make stuff up for his blog. Pitiful debate technique, and not really worth of a pro journalist at all.
Mike sez: On another note, the blog you linked to I think supports my theory quite nicely — all the crimes committed in 2009 and only two documented instances in which someone successfully defended themselves? That suggests that such instances are very much the exception than the rule.
Jack replies: Why do you want to limit it to only 2009? Let me quote YOU…
“I’ve been in the news game 11 years and have yet to report of even one person in our coverage area thwarting a criminal act because he was armed, and odds are in that time period, it should have happened at least once.”
NOW you want to move the goalposts from “11 years” to just the past few months? You had your argument totally destroyed, eh… and now you want to “change” it and get a re-do.
Sorry… but we DO have scroll back.
There are dozens of stories in that link, all from your state showing average citizens using firearms to defend themselves from social deviants. Considering that Mass. is one of the most difficult states for the average citizen to even own a firearm that makes it even more compelling.
Mike sez: Your earlier link to the Colorado Springs incident is also supportive of one of my earlier arguments, because if you’ll notice, the woman who opened fire had law-enforcement experience. That means training, something many many people do not have. She was prepared by professionals how to handle such a situation.
Jack replies: Yes, she had law enforcement experience. As do many of the people who legally carry handguns. And military experience. And quite a bit of civilian training.
Just because YOU feel YOU would be incompetent in that situation please don’t project on to others that same feeling. But we are waiting for your thousands of stories of CCW holders making things worse. After all… with millions and millions of us carrying over decades in dozens of states you should be able to find those kinds of stories by the bucketful.
But you can’t, can you.
Mike sez: I do not trust the majority of the public to react with such intelligence, thoughtfulness, or steely reserve. I expect them to panic, because that is their instinct.
Jack replies: And isn’t it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work, and without the anointed ones’ guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?
Like they say: When you’re sick you go to a car mechanic; when you’re in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about guns, you go to Mr. Factless.
Mike sez: As for the notion that owning a gun is in the same ballpark as having a fire extinguisher or a spare tire, all these actions are in fact driven by a level of fear, reasonable and unreasonable.
Jack replies: And owning a gun for self defense purposes falls into the same general “be prepared” category. Any boy scout can explain that to you.
Mike sez: I think if your concerns over being placed in a situation where pulling and possibly using a firearm to take a human life are so great, I cannot help but feel that your life must be a non-stop terror ride,
Jack replies: It’s not the odds, it is the stakes involved.
And do you think my driving is a non-stop terror ride because I have a spare tire?
Mike sez: for which I pity you, or you live in an incredibly dangerous neighborhood
Jack replies: So it’s your contention that crime only happens in certain neighborhoods and if I merely live in another neighborhood you will personally, 100 percent guarantee me that no crime will ever impact on my life.
Mike sez: I suggest Wareham. That’s a nice boring town.
Jack replies: Do they have back-door locks in Wareham?
Justin sez: Yes, guns are just like fire extinguishers because everyone knows how many people are killed each year due to fire extinguishers.
Jack replies: I have a gun and I have a fire extinguisher. What do they both have in common?
NEITHER one does a thing except sit there on the shelf unless a PERSON who makes a choice picks it up and uses it.
So tell us… out of those people who were killed last year by a person using a gun, how many of those were killed by a gun which determined all by itself to kill someone?
Mike sez: …you’re not going to convince me that the general public can be trusted with lethal weaponry
Jack replies: Not even close as to the reason I am posting here…
“There are people in the media and right next door to you that want to see you become a criminal.”
You’re absolutely correct! The media and your neighbors are out to get you, to frame you as a mastermind criminal bound for world domination and to see you locked away for the rest of your life next to the Hamburgerler. They’re also sleeping with your significant others when you’re not looking! Darn reporters…
“Although you hear about all kinds of violence that illegal aliens kidnap and attack people you don’t hear about massive attacks of Americans gunning down Illegals. Law abiding people simply do not “attack” over some imaginary or perceived social tort the way criminals do.”
Yes, again you’re right. Only illegal aliens attack, shoot and kill people. In fact, that’s the real reason they’re coming to America… They’re so bored in the war-warn and/or poor countries they’ve decided to track you, your family and your goldfish down, kidnap you (for kicks) and then shoot you (also for kicks, ’cause what else are they going to do with you? Keep you as a pet? That’s be silly.). A US citizen has never done this to anyone… ever.
“They want to criminalize the passive ownership of firearms. They want you defenseless in the face of aggression. They will never stop attacking your human rights.”
You were part of your high school’s theater club weren’t you? You ol’ dog. You still have a taste for the melodramatic after all these years!
Yeah, yeah, yeah… the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” adage. It’s old and tiresome and just goes to show how people can’t be trusted with guns. If people kill people, why give them an easy means of doing so? But I digress… since we’re exchanging laughs tonight I’ll quote/paraphrase Eddie Izzard:
“The gun definitely helps. I just think just standing there going, “Bang!” That’s not going to kill too many people, is it? You’d have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.”
Justin sez: Yeah, yeah, yeah… the whole “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” adage. It’s old and tiresome and just goes to show how people can’t be trusted with guns.
Jack replies: But you really don’t have an answer for it, eh. Here’s a link to a webcam that has been focused on a Smith & Wesson handgun for ten years now. Want to guess how many people the firearm has killed in that amount of time?
http://montego.roughwheelers.com/gun_cam.html
Justin sez: If people kill people, why give them an easy means of doing so?
Jack replies: It’s called “freedom.” Yes, it can be, and will be misused by those who choose to do so. When you get a cure for the sin that is in man’s heart then let us know. The world will be very interested.
Reminds me of one of my favorite verses in the Bible. It’s in Genesis when Abel is out tending his garden and Cain walks up. Abel says to his brother, “Crikey, mate, where’d you get that Glock?”
Justin sez: But I digress… since we’re exchanging laughs tonight I’ll quote/paraphrase Eddie Izzard:
“The gun definitely helps. I just think just standing there going, “Bang!” That’s not going to kill too many people, is it? You’d have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.”
And Jack replies: I wonder how far ~this~ lady would have gotten just saying “bang” as she was waiting in her bedroom closet, on the phone to 911, knowing that her stalker was getting closer and closer to her and that the police would not get there on time. Listen in on the 911 call for yourself and see if she ~said~ “bang” or if she had a more effective way to protect herself…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A
Or perhaps this gentleman should have just shouted “bang” to prevent the rape of a neighbor…
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/19/e19attackweb/
Or perhaps these two elderly women could have just shouted “bang” to keep out a home invader…
http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNEG/MGArticle/NEG_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778537908&path=
Or maybe this person could have saved the kidnap victim by shouting “bang”
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6300119
Mike sez: Before you go questioning my journalistic integrity, perhaps you should review even a fraction of the material that has seen print in my paper over the past decade-plus. If I were wont to make crap up, I’d either be out of the industry a long time ago or the defendant in lord knows how many libel lawsuits. One blog post you disagree with does not a condemnation of my entire career make
Jack replies: I was listening in on a court case once where a gent accused of bank robbery used the defense, “It couldn’t have been ME. Look at all the banks I’ve walked into my entire life and never robbed!”
Didn’t fly then, and the same excuse won’t fly now.
Well, I guess if a guy I don’t know, who has never read anything else I’ve ever written, who has no idea how to separate the content on a humor/op-ed blog from actual reporting, tells me I should hang my head in shame for not exercising journalistic integrity in a piece that is all about my gut feelings on a topic, I guess I’ll just have to laugh to myself and change absolutely nothing.
For a guy who claimed not to take himself seriously, you sure do. Bet you think “The Daily Show” should tighten up on its journalistic integrity too.
‘Grats, Jack! Despite a lot of vigiorous competition, you’ve won the Internet Tough Guy award! Enjoy your free subscription:
http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/internet-tough-guy-magazine.gif
Eric, your posts are childish at best. You took one phrase out of my post and called me a 5 year old. Do you have trouble reading for comprehension? I clearly stated that every creature on this planet has the natual right to defend itself, guns being the best choice for people. Your other posts add nothing to the discussion but immature insults to others who disagree with you. If you can’t add anything intelligent, why do you bother? Does it give you some kind of thrill to post stupid replies? You should just go away and come back when you grow up, if that is even possible.
Justin, over 80 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms did not injure or kill anyone today, Why do you think you have the right to force your fellow citizens to bend to your will? That is just sick and twisted. Why do you feel a woman found dead in an alley, strangled with her pantyhose, is better than that same woman standing over the corpse of the violent rapist she just shot? Do you really think you are doing society some grand favor by taking away law abiding people’s guns? Are you really naive enough to think that banning guns will reduce crime? Do you really think that once all firearms are forcibly taken from good people the criminals will be disarmed? Drugs are illegal, do you think I can’t go out and buy any type of drug I desire? Prostitution is illegal, do you really think I can’t go out and find a hooker? Gambling is illegal, do you really think I can’t go out and find a high stakes poker game? Have you no clue about how many garages have a mill and a lathe in them? Do you really think nobody knows how to make a firearm from scratch? You thought process displays a remarkable lack of depth to your understanding of some of these issues.
And now with this, the 50th reply (!), I’ll be exercising my right as blogger/moderator to put a cap on the discussion, so no further posts will be approved. I’ll just let future visitors unearth this post and marvel at the complexity, maturity, civility, and mutual respect everyone has shown.
(Dang, I REALLY need that sarcasm font.)
So, thanks for validating me with such lavish attention and providing me with what turned out to be an undeniably fascinating social/psychological experiment.
Now I’m going to go write about something non-controversial. Like abortion.