Not bad for a gun-hater.
So. A homophobic terrorist shoots up a Unitarian Universalist church, which is pretty much the mass murdering equivalent of kicking puppies. The usual suspects on both sides come out of the woodwork to claim that more guns or fewer guns, respectively, would have prevented this tragedy from occurring.
On the NRA side, SaysUncle is on the case!
The Mrs. often asks why I carry to church. It’s because shootings keep happening at churches.
Kynn points out that politicizing tragedy and victim-blaming is kind of a shitty thing to do. Posters from SaysUncle immediately jump all over her blog. She bans them. Her blog, her prerogative, and she wasn’t looking for a debate.
SaysUncle & Co. get butthurt about it and bring up Kynn’s appearance and gender presentation, as if either are relevant.
I can’t resist an opportunity to troll, so I went over there and attempted to reason with them. After all, I’m not anti-gun; I just think that guns wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy. But they flip out, arguing that of course, they totally could have taken down the shooter without hurting anyone else.
There are a lot of arguments that one can make here, but my final one, as I was starting to get caught up in their spam filters, was that yes, certainly, I respect their right to own guns. Among the many problems with their victim-blaming line, however, is the idea that the only way to prevent gun violence is by carrying concealed firearms. To which I asked: what about kids who are too young to shoot, people with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from safely operating guns, and especially in this case, what about pacifists who don’t want to carry guns? Should they, like the original poster, carry guns to church? And if they don’t, do they deserve to get shot?
The, er, ludicrous response:
Each and every single person on Earth has the implicit right to kneel, bend their head and take a bullet in the back of the head. Each person has the right to lie supine with knees spread. Each and every person has the right to stand in abject terror with hands raised and the sure and certain knowledge that personal death is very near.
Where do these people live—Baghdad? I have a hard time imagining that violence is so rampant in the U.S. that one’s only option if one wants to be safe is to pack heat. Earlier, we were arguing about whether it’s responsible to have guns around children—I firmly believe that it is not. Their argument hinged on the infrequency of accidental child deaths caused by guns.
But random shootings, well-publicized as they are, are also quite rare. You’re more likely to die in a car accident. So I wonder at the psychology of people convinced that they need to be armed when they attend children’s plays at churches—you know, just in case. I suspect there’s some other motive at work, such as complete and utter paranoia or, possibly, tiny penises.
These guys don’t believe me that I’m not part of some sinister left-wing conspiracy to take their guns away (I’m really not, and I’m not sure why they’re so scared when the far-right has been in power in their country, content to erode all of their civil liberties besides the right to bear arms). But to be honest, it’s really hard to take the pro-gun argument seriously when the people making these arguments are so batshit that the solution to any problem becomes a testosterone-laced violent fantasy.
Anyway, apparently they’re looking for Rational DebateTM, which I guess is an invitation to wander over there and disagree with them. Just a warning: If you disagree too effectively, they start to froth at the mouth and suddenly every comment you make mysteriously gets caught in their spam filter.
Oh, so you claim you want a “rational debate”. Let’s see if you “ban” me within .1 min of reading past this line. “Politicizing” shooting victims? Well, do shootings occur at church? YES. Does Tn have a concealed carry law? YES. So the “unitarians” CHOSE not to be armed. OK. One guy stood up and took a blast from the gun, probably saving lives. OK, he is a hero. Then the guy was tackled by others in the church. OK, unitarians won’t stand around and be shot. NOW, how is saying “I carry when I go to church” POLITICIZING ANYTHING? Ever heard of a STATEMENT?
So, should all church members be armed? Dunno. That is their CHOICE. Like getting an abortion, going to a place where a bunch of like minded zealots share a common superstition, or carrying a gun. Now are school shootings rare? YES. Did the church lose members? YES. Would church members carrying guns have saved lives? Dunno. I wasn’t there. But I do remember a few MONTHS ago when a church member with a handgun and a concealed handgun license shot down a lunatic with a semi-auto rifle as he was trying to enter the church to KILL more people. Do you think that she shouldn’t have had that gun?And PROTECTING YOURSELF is not a “violent fantasy”. As to “tiny penises” and socialists that keep bringing up this point for laughs, “In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.As to “little kynn”, that foul mouthed piece of shit can fuck off and die.
I didn’t comment over there, but I did read them ones that were. I saw a bunch of comments under your name.
What exactly are you claiming got ‘caught in their spam filter’?
Seems to me you had quite ample chance to voice your opinion.
duh: “but I did read the ones…” I really need to figure out this English thing.
(I’m really not, and I’m not sure why they’re so scared when the far-right has been in power in their country, content to erode all of their civil liberties besides the right to bear arms)
There’s a mystery in here; if gun rights are so totally vital for freedom and safety, how has the general continuing support for gun rights affected that erosion of civil liberties? Not at all, as far as I can tell. Yet I thought that’s what gun rights were ultimately for – so that people can protect themselves from tyranny.
Ick, I couldn’t get past that stuff about looks. It was disturbing.
I carry, but I don’t think it is a necessity–few law abiding people live such a dangerous life as to make it “unsafe” to go unarmed, and those people should probably investigate lifestyle changes. That doesn’t mean you should only carry if you’ve got a particular known threat–You should carry if you are willing, law-abiding and responsible. Not carrying does not mean you deserve to be hurt. Uncle has specifically said that he doesn’t blame the victims. The blame rests solely on the slime with the shotgun.
I’m not pleased that Kynn’s appearance or lifestyle was brought up at all–It was irrelevant, and a blemish to “my” side of the argument.
I agree that in this particular case, guns likely wouldn’t have helped because Greg McKendry and other heroes were there to take action. I don’t think I’d be brave enough to be the first one in, unarmed against a shotgun. Someone has to be first, but that person is likely to pay a huge price. I think I’m brave enough to return fire if I were armed, even handgun vs. shotgun.
There aren’t enough heroes of Greg McKendry’s stature to go around, and despite being a gun nut myself, I’d rather have more of him than more people carrying guns. There are times when a hero is unavailable, and a decent person with a gun will have to do. On the other hand there are times when bravery isn’t enough by itself. I can’t recall hearing of a decent person with a gun making it worse, and when they are in the right place they can make a huge difference. Look up Jeanne Assam–She was a church member (despite mainstream media mostly calling her a security guard) with a license who stopped the gunman at the New Life church in Colorado Springs last December.
Do you have confirmation that reasonably civil anti-gun posts are being suppressed on pro-gun sites? I’m sure it happens occasionally, but it is nearly universal on anti-gun sites. The moderation I’m familiar with on most pro gun sites and blogs is generally for specific, defined reasons–Personal attacks, advocacy of criminal acts or profanity.
Apparently if I’d been as pretty as the rest of them, it would have been fine to call them gun fucks. Or, something.
Um, parm me? Mister? Dude went to go shoot up a church and it’s far from the first time such things have happened in such places. Home fires are middlin’ rare, too — but I own a fire extinguisher and so should you. Many home fires can’t be fixed with a home-sized extinguisher, either; but I still have one.
On the other hand, expecting UUs to be packin’ is like expecting an Amish farmer to have a celphone to call the fire brigade: not how it works.
In the Knoxville church shooting, the bad guy ot off three shots, the third into the ceiling because brave, unarmed folks had rushed him and were in the process of subduing him, barehanded. That’s no “testoserone-laden fantasy,” it’s what a certain proportion of the population does. They’re not all of them male and they are not all of them macho and I presume you were not intending to be spitting at them?
Would it have been any less brave if a dear old lady, visiting for the first time, had shot the malefactor with her little purse gun?
Pools and household chemicals kill more little children than guns. Buckets of water rack up a terrible death toll. I’ll bet you’re a bright fellow who can safely handle those items and children togther without tragedy. Guns aren’t so special, deadliness-wise. When guys like you make them out to be a substitute penis, I have to wonder why the fixation?
A bad guy did bad things and brave folks stopped him. You think lacking a shotgun he wouldn’t have opened a gas valve and waited to light a match? Rammed the building with a vehicle? –Found some way to get the attention he so craved?
You cannot Nerf the world.
Kynn, has it occurred to you at all that maybe gun owners were abrasive and insulting towards you because that is the tone you took directed at them first?
Personally, I generally respond to people in a manner dictated by how they speak to/about me. If someone is polite, I respond politely. If someone is insulting and bigoted towards me, I’ll probably respond in kind.
I’m pretty sure name-calling is never welcome. We should all try to avoid it. Ahem.
(Please note, anent “name calling,” that the salutation of my orignal comment in no way refers to Kynn, whose comment, along with others, had not yet cleared moderation when I composed mine and I find the inadvertent juxtaposition regrettable. I’m an obnoxious old lady but I do try to be fair).
I am so sad for people like Fiftycal with such tiny… hearts.
Guav, surely you’re not suggesting Kynn was the one being bigoted. And the claim that you guys were just defending yourself in kind is ridiculous. You dug up Kynn’s personal photos, then pointed your fingers and laughed. When it got pointed out that you were just engaging in ad hominem bullying, not a single one of you acted sorry. Did Kynn ever make personal attacks on any of you? No. You just took it personally. But it’s always the bullies who have the thinnest skin.
Roberta X, Sabotabby’s not a guy. Unless you’re accusing her of penis envy.
I made fun of her being ugly, cause that’s what ugly people are for.
Wowza. My eyes are bleeding from just the very first comment on this thread.
I think guns are awesome and I believe that the Second Amendment does grant US citizens the constitutional right to private gun ownership. However, I also think that it’s pretty retarded to expect a bunch of kids and/or disabled folks to carry a gun around and defend themselves–clearly that’s not anything remotely resembling a solution to the problem of armed nutjobs busting into crowded venues and opening fire. And frankly, I fervently hope that most people do NOT start carrying guns. They already do enough damage with their fuckin’ CARS and they even have to get a license proving they’ve learned how to operate THOSE.
Ah, yes, those nostalgic memories of 4th grade recess come flooding back…
Um, Quin: you lose any moral high ground that you might’ve had when you start off with a reference to the tired and hackneyed ‘tiny penis’ nonsense.
And Kynn’s a big girl: she started this with her Gun Fucks stuff. May I remind you and everyone that she started with this before the bodies had cooled off? And kept it up. Yes, making fun of her looks is and was childish, no argument there. But along with being Gun Fucks, we’re also humans, and at times we fall victim to our baser instincts, just like anyone else.
Say a prayer for the dead, even if you’re not religious, OK?
And nobody is touching or taking any of my firearms because of something somebody else did. Whatever your position is in terms of guns, whatever plan to reduce or eliminate idiots killing others with a firearm, the fact that I and literally millions of others never misuse ours has to be taken into account. This is not negotiable.
Quin, I s’pose I was misled by vocabulary and not handed any clue by her name. Apologies, Sabotabby.
…But none at all to folks who believe the disabled should have no right to bear arms. (Minors are another thing; they’ve got, in theory at least, Responsible Adults in charge of the question). I recently spent the better part of a year on crutches, which makes running away not an option. Gee, if only there was some small, easily-carried means of defense with a proven safety record…. (Yes, it’s true: on a per-item basis, handguns are far safer than, say, automobiles or swimming pools). And guess what? Folks who cannot run away are more likely to be singled out by criminals.
Another point I have not yet seen mentioned is that about nine out of ten defensive uses of firearms don’t involve shots being fired. Most bad guys are not all that brave; when J. Random Stick-em-up tries to practice his craft and Granny hauls out the .25 Grampa gave her in ’51, odds are good he’ll run away.
There are baddies in this world and there always will be. Giving them strong reasons to not act out their badness is a good thing. Don’t hear me wrong, I think the plain fact that in the most recent church shooting a significant number of individuals stood up to the threat and put a stop to it was darned good aversive therapy for other malevolent souls considering the same act. The goal is “stopping the bad guy in the act;” the means are whatever you’ve got and are comfortable using. I see no reason for those means to be limited by anything but individual choice.
Quin, if Guav will not suggest that (I cannot speak for him either way), then I bloody well will come out and flat-out say it: Kynn was being a bigoted, discriminatory, childish, close-minded twit. I would point out that his initial post that started all of this crap was the originating element. I am not trying to excuse those people who made fun of him for his looks and lifestyle choices, but when you run around screaming and smack the crap out of a hornet’s nest, a rational, reasonable adult would expect some kind of reaction.
In point of fact, Kynn personally attacked a remarkably large cross-section of the American populace… and then closed off comments on his particular post, as if he was unable to deal with the reactions resulting from his words. Sounds to me like someone not only has problems with thin skin, but also accountability, causal relationships, and taking responsibility. But that is just me.
Peter wrote: “May I remind you and everyone that she started with this before the bodies had cooled off?”
Actually, I linked to the multiple posts that really “started this” before the bodies cooled.
Linoge: “In point of fact, Kynn personally attacked a remarkably large cross-section of the American populace…”
You don’t understand the concept of personal attack, do you?
Pop quiz! Which of these is a personal attack?
a. “Someone who believes X should just fucking fuck off already.”
b. “This person is so ugly, no wonder they’re so wrong!”
Linoge: “…and then closed off comments on his particular post, as if he was unable to deal with the reactions resulting from his words.”
Is there a reason you’re deliberately ignoring my requested pronouns? It makes your claim of not condoning bigotry sound pretty hollow.
As for closing off comments, my LJ has been and always will be for people on my friends list to comment. Anything else is at my discretion. And my LJ is not going to be a place to have gun control debates, period. Are you really claiming that, after I’ve shown up at Mr. Uncle’s blog and Pro-Gun Progressive’s blog — and been repeatedly blasted for being an ugly genderqueer person — that I am somehow avoiding the reactions to my words?
I continue to stand by calling people gun fucks if they allow their fetishization of firearms to override their basic humanity and compassion — and that’s what I feel has happened with the initial responses I linked to, as well as the continued attacks against my appearance and gender identity.
Linoge: “…but when you run around screaming and smack the crap out of a hornet’s nest, a rational, reasonable adult would expect some kind of reaction.”
Dude, smacking the hornet’s nest would be showing up on Mr. Uncle’s site and posting something there, not on my obscure little LiveJournal that none of you gun fucks have ever read before. Mr. Uncle is apparently paranoid or something, as he checks referrer logs frequently just in case he finds someone who disagrees with him. That’s kinda nutty; it’s a far cry from screaming and hitting hornets’ nests. I never touched your nest, buddy.
Kynn,
The majority of us check our referrer logs. I do it because I like to know who makes up my readership and where my traffic is coming from. When we see a visitor that is new or unusual, we then check it out. If we find someone linking to us to attack or to support, We make note of it.
Linking to a site that receives thousands of visitors daily, using the high quality language you did, and not expecting a response is pretty naive, don’t you think?
You can stand by your statements all you want, you have that right, we also have the right to respond . If not at your site, then elsewhere.
It’s funny really. You get upset when people don’t use your “requested pronouns” and call them bigots if they don’t yet can’t seem to comprehend why people would get upset when you call them “fucking gun fucks” etc. based off of your preconceived stereotypes and generalizations.
Thanks, I will take option c – all of the above. Just because it was a personal attack against millions of people does not make it any less personal or any less of an attack. I would think someone with your background would understand that, or is it just more socially acceptable to attack gun owners as opposed t other subsets of humanity?
And, yes, Kynn, that is what I am claiming. Because, after about one or two posts on Say Uncle, you stopped bothering to address the specific points being brought up against your arguments, and instead chose to focus almost exclusively on those people who were ridiculing you for your appearance or lifestyle choices. That is your choice and your perogative, and I certainly will not rob you of either, just like I will not rob you of the decision to do whatever you so desire with your weblog… but all of those decisions are rather telling concering you and your character. Of course, considering the fact that you started this entire charade with an equivalent attack levelled at gun-owners across the country, I guess it should come as no surprise to me that you actually had no substance behind that attack, and immediately fixated on the equally substanceless counter attack.
In the same vein, you are welcome to “feel” all you like (even if those “feelings” are erroneous, which, by and large, in this situation they are), and you are more than welcome to continue your attacks… and it will only solidify in my mind your narrow-mindedness, discriminatory nature, and childish maturity level. Which, come to think of it, is all manner of ironic, and borderline hypocritical, to be coming from you… funny, that.
As for checking referral logs, just about every weblog writer I “know” does so, just out of curiosity of who is linking to them. I do it about once a day, and am confronted with largely Google-based searches, but it is still vaguely interesting to see which of my posts attracts the most attention. I do find it quite telling, however, that you immediately ascribe paranoia to what is simple human curiosity, and I further find it rather amusing that you do not understand that there is effectively no difference to commenting on someone’s weblog directly, and commenting about and linking to someone’s weblog on your own personal space. In fact, in the eyes of the God That Is Google, your individual post may be considerably more potent than just a simple comment, and thus that much more readily detected, disseminated, and responded to.
But, as I alluded to before, if being called out for your own words and actions is causing you this much heartache, the problem is yours, not mine.
Quin:
I didn’t say “we” (even though I had no part of brouhaha) were “defending” ourselves in kind, I said they were reacting in kind—someone talked about gun advocates like an asshole, they were assholes back. That is generally how it works. I doubt if Kynn’s post had been civil and reasoned instead of rude and insulting that anyone would have brought up her looks. Of course, we’ll never know, because she didn’t.
And nobody “dug up” Kynn’s “personal photos,” they merely looked at the the quite public photos posted directly below the gun entry. Wow, what clandestine sleuthery.
You ask, “Did Kynn ever make personal attacks on any of you?” Yes, she did. See below.
Kynn:
You say “You don’t understand the concept of personal attack, do you?” but I think we do. You did start this with personal attacks, you said “those pompous, idiotic gun-fetishists need to shut the fuck up … Right-wing gun nuts are fucking assholes.” and then linked to “exhibits” to prove your “point,” including SayUncle.
So quite clearly, you literally were calling Uncle a pompous, idiotic, lunatic fucking asshole—so he replied and said you were unattractive. Cry me a fucking river. You want to throw around insulting words in a abrasive, confrontational tone, but then someone says you’re funny looking or something and all of a sudden you’re the innocent victim. Poor you. What was that about bullies having the thinnest skin?
Like I said, you set the tone for this discussion. That doesn’t mean that your targets are required to respond in kind, but it certainly makes it understandable—that’s generally how people operate when they feel insulted.
That being said, SayUncle has issued a public apology, as he should have.
“…a testosterone-laced violent fantasy…”
Who are you trying to kid? That’s a bullshit presumption. There is nothing to debate here.
“their fetishization of firearms”
Define your terms. Tell me what that means.
Hmm…okay, I’ve now slogged through all linked threads and Sabotabby’s comments on said other sites…I hate to say this, but Kynn did start the whole assholery. My only complaint about the responses she got is, of course, the blatant misogynistic obsession with how a female blogger looks and the vicious transphobia. Oh, SIGH. If the yay-gunz! folks had been able to restrain themselves from jumping onto that idiot bandwagon, they’d have come off looking completely in the right in terms of blog etiquette, courtesy, reasoned arguments, etc. Kynn seems to think that FUCK is not only a noun, verb and adjective but the GREATEST of them all, and that pretending that it’s not ragingly aggressive and mindless to fling it at a bunch of other people because the unsurprising response is inconvenient–well, that’s pretty stupid. Sad but true. (I also think it’s rude to close YOUR blog to comments and then come over here to engage is…er. Why would you do that..? If you want to engage, why not use your own space, after all..? Yours is too good…which means ours is just the right degree of shit to be used as a proxy..?)
I do think Sab’s comment on the yay-gunz! site was respectful, insightful and full of interesting stuff to debate–I saw one person take on one of her points in a reasoned fashion and think it’s a shame that THAT isn’t the direction the whole discussion took.
Roberta, please check your reading comprehension: Nobody said “the disabled” shouldn’t have access to guns. What Sabotabby said was that guns are not accessible to “people with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from safely operating guns”—she didn’t lump all people with disabilities into one group, but specified that some people’s disabilities prevent them from being able to use guns safely.
A person with a bad leg might be able to safely own and operate a gun. A person with limited, uncorrectable vision might face some difficulties operating a gun. A person who needs medication in order to quiet the voices in their head might not be the safest candidate for gun ownership. A person who lives with a chronic illness might be just fine and dandy. Sabo referred to people whose disabilities preclude gun ownership and operation.
Aaaaannnnd another thing!
Something I take from Sabo’s post is the utter bizarreness of expecting people to carry deadly weapons just in case some nutbar with a grudge opens fire, and the strangeness of the expectation that someone with a gun could necessarily make a difference when an unarmed person couldn’t.
I wonder how many of the people who think that they with their handgun, or the hypothetical visiting grandmaman with her tiny, purse sized revolver, would be able to take down someone packing more heat.
Things I know, from the very small number of things I know about guns:
a) Shooting accurately is not easy, even in the controlled environment of the shooting range. Some people are good at it, some people have to practise a lot.
b) Outside the shooting range, circumstances are much less controlled: the marksperson has to allow for distraction, doesn’t necessarily have a nice, clear lane between themselves and their target, and must take into account these outside distractions while waiting for the clear shot.
c) Real, live people in a panic, even the most organized, sensible real live people, do not behave like people in a shooting range, or like extras or actors in movies. In movies, unless the screenwriter dislikes a character, or needs them to be taken out for dramatic effect, there’s always a nice, clear shot between the hero and the badguy. One nice clean shot, which the hero, being a hero (which means that he (usually “he,” that is) can make cleanly even while bleeding from a thousand small wounds and hanging upside down by his toes. This is because the screenwriter is on his side. Outside the movies, there’s nothing you can do to make the screenwriter be on your side, and stop those panicked people from getting in the way of your heroics, sending your shot wide and possibly endangering even more people.
d) A gun will not keep a person from panicking.
e) A shot from friendly fire will injure you as surely as an enemy shot, if you happen to take one.
I’m just not sure that those who think we should all be pacing in order to deter the angry people from shooting us, once we are sure they’re going to. Do people really think that a society full of people emulating John McClane is a safer society? How do they know the screenwriters are on their side?
Zingerella:
“Something I take from Sabo’s post is the utter bizarreness of expecting people to carry deadly weapons just in case some nutbar with a grudge opens fire, and the strangeness of the expectation that someone with a gun could necessarily make a difference when an unarmed person couldn’t.”
Would you like examples? http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Is it 100% certain? No. Nothing is.
Does it increase your odds against someone “packing heat”? Yes.
Sounds like a good solution to school violence, too. Why not? Kids don’t lose their tempers easily and get into frivolous fights or anything.
Sigh. Reading comprehension, again.
What I said in the quotation you excerpted, thirdpower, was “the bizarreness of expecting people to carry guns” in order to defend themselves against random acts of violence. Not “the bizarreness of expecting that a gun will injure someone,” or “the bizarreness of expecting that someone might choose to defend themselves with a gun.”
Please try reading again, closely, for meaning. You might wish to read aloud: I’m told this facilitates comprehension. It’s one of the strategies recommended for decoding text in the tenth grade curriculum.
That’s a slight mischaracterization of what’s being said when we get into these discussions. It’s not that we expect people to carry guns around with them, it’s that we expect to be allowed to do so personally—there’s a difference.
I do not personally advocate that people, in general, should take firearms to church. But I don’t see any reason why someone who is legally allowed to carry in their state should be prevented from doing so.
This same misunderstanding was rampant after the VA Tech shooting when people pointed out that had VA Tech not been a “gun free zone,” perhaps an armed citizen might have been able to stop the event sooner. Let’s be clear about something here: Gun rights advocates such as myself are not saying that the solution to public shootings is “more guns.” We are not saying that the solution is “let children bring guns to school.” We are not saying that the solution is “arm everyone.” Nobody is talking about handing guns out to the population, or “putting more guns on the streets.”
Those are all straw men.
All that is being said is that adults 21 and older who already have concealed carry permits and are already carrying firearms around in public every day—and have already had all the background checks, paid their fees, been fingerprinted, have no criminal record or DUIs and whatever other restrictions the particular state has—should be able to take their firearm with them on campus when they go to class. Or to their church. Leaving their firearm in their car when they enter a mall—as some Omaha citizens undoubtedly did—didn’t make anyone any safer from the shooter there.
I don’t know that there is actually a “solution” to people losing their shit and deciding to start blasting away at bystanders, but it’s clear that “Gun Free Zones” do a piss poor job of keeping these zones free from the guns of people who intend on committing crimes.
Wearing a seatbelt doesn’t guarantee that you won’t die in a car accident. Wearing a condom doesn’t guarantee that won’t catch an STD. Having a fire extinguisher in your kitchen doesn’t guarantee that you won’t burn your house down. But these are reasonable precautions to take to make your chances better, and nobody is ever called paranoid for taking them—they are simply prepared.
Owning a firearm doesn’t bestow magical powers on you or make you a superhero, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be able to respond to any situation effectively. But it gives you the potential to defend yourself if the situation ever arises, whereas being completely unarmed just makes you a relatively defenseless target.
Zingerella, I left a comment to you, but it either got deleted or is in moderation limbo or something.
Thirdpower–not that all those stories aren’t great, they are–but you can come up with just as many stories about people with guns who either did themselves in with it by accident, did someone else in with it by accident, or had it taken away from them and got done in by that previously unarmed person. To wit:
Chicago police officer fatally shot with own gun
Man Shot With Own Gun During Home Invasion
Police: Man Trying To Protect Family Shot By Intruder
New Orleans Police Officer Killed With Own Gun While Arresting Rape Suspect
Home Invasion Victim Shot With His Own Gun
Amtrak Officer Shot In Foot With Own Gun During Scuffle
As I said before, I like guns and I’m a firm believer in the constitutional right to private gun ownership. However, let’s not pretend that guns are magic solutions to person-on-person violence and that training can prevent you from getting your ass handed to you by an unarmed person, even.
You’re not saying that, and to his credit, SaysUncle clarified here that a gun probably wouldn’t have made a difference in this situation. (After he had argued earlier that it would have.)
Which was—heavy sigh—a large part of my original point that seems to have gotten lost in people not reading what I actually wrote, and instead choosing to position me as some sort of man-married-woman-liberal-something with the power to legislate their guns away.
Compare your argument, which is reasonable, to comments such as:
Or:
These comments posit guns as the only solution to gun violence. And taking issue with that proposition is not the same thing as wanting to ban guns.
Conversely, I haven’t argued anywhere that stricter gun control would have made a difference, because I don’t think it would have. What would have made a difference in this situation, if anything, is a better social safety net, better supports for people with mental illnesses, and a more stable economy (since one of the triggers—and its a common one in guy-snaps-and-shoots-everyone scenarios—seems to have been job loss). But that’s just not as sexy a political issue as either side of the gun control debate.
Zingarella:
And yet nothing you said countered my post at all. Guav said it much more eloquently.
Lisa:
Three of those articles relate to the police. Seems they need better training, eh?
Now did I claim that “guns are magic solutions to person-on-person violence and that training can prevent you from getting your ass handed to you by an unarmed person”
No I did not. What I said was that having a firearm increases your chances against an armed opponent. All you did was add to the mis-characterisation as presented by Zing.
I agree Sabotabby, those quotes a pretty goofy.
It should be noted that my comments are were not directed at your original post, but to several of the other comments that were left here.
thirdpower, I did not feel it necessary to engage with your post, as I deemed it irrelevant to the point that I took from Sabo’s post.
Neither Sabotabby, nor Lisa KS is arguing that you, personally, should not be permitted to carry a gun. Nor am I. I don’t know whether you’re competent to carry a firearm. I don’t know what training you’ve undertaken, what safety protocol you follow, nor do I have any clue as to your mental health or anger-management strategies. I’ll take it on faith that you would pass a gun safety exam. That’s not the point.
I’m not having the discussion about personal freedom to carry weapons.
I’m much more interested in discussing the kind of society that people want and feel they live in, as evidenced by statements such as this one:
Because what I read, when I read that statement, is that the writer believes that there are precisely two options for people living in the society in which we live: either carry a weapon and be prepared to use it, to escalate, to bear the risk and the responsibility of carrying against the chance that you will encounter a situation that justifies using it, and that in such a situation your use of a firearm will make the difference, OR be prepared to become a victim of gun violence.
I personally think those are dumb choices. Whether or not I’m in favour of your gun-toting lifestyle, I think those are dumb choices. I don’t want to live in a world where the odds of someone pulling a gun on a church or a school assembly or a classroom are so high that individuals deem carrying and wielding guns to be their best options for safety. And I happen to believe that, regardless of whether you personally carry a gun and would be capable of using it effectively in a situation that called for shooting, we as a society can do more effective things to make violence a less easy, less palatable option for those who are less responsible and well balanced than everyone’s ideal, responsible, sensible gun owner. I think we can address the polarization in our discourse, that demonizes groups of people and convinces the disenfranchised that liberals, or women, or Unitarians, or white people, or government workers are their enemies and are responsible for their disenfranchisement. I think we can provide better a better social safety net, so that people don’t become quite so desperate and disenfranchised that they feel that their only options are violence and suicide by cop. I think we can create cities and towns that function as communities so that you have fewer pockets of crime, violence, and despair (it’s interesting how violence, crime, and despair seem to go together, like modern day Furies, isn’t it?)
Will all these things keep random acts of aggression from happening? Of course not. No amount of utopia-building will guard against someone’s random rage. But it’s my contention that not all rage is truly random, that desperate unhappy people are more prone to violent outbursts, and that if you get rid of external sources of stress, you’ll have fewer truly stressed people who snap.
And that, is, I think, a far more interesting conversation than whether you, personally, should be permitted to carry your own arsenal, or whether a gun-toting church-goer would have been a more effective deterrent than an unarmed one.
Uh, I don’t WANT the world to be like that either—but it is. This isn’t about the world we want, it’s about the world as it exists. This is akin to an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. Taking steps to be prepared for such an event does not mean that you want to live in a world like that, it merely means you acknowedge the reality that we still do.
And as a liberal, I agree for the most part with your description of crime and violence largely being a result of socioeconomic and societal factors, but it’s important not to dispel culture as well, which might be just as powerful a determinant. And of course I agree that we should work, collectively, to try to counteract those forces and try to improve future generations and make things safer, but that’s something that will not bear fruit for years, even decades. The reality is that, work as we might to lower crime and violence in the future, there is still the present to deal with. On an individual level, I cannot change society today. I can, however, prepare myself to react to violent situations of the sort that have come to me, my friends and my loved ones in the past.
And of course, these are not mutually exclusive. What makes the most sense to me is to take steps to be prepared for the unfortunate possibility of violence even as we work together to try to prevent such things from happeninge. There’s no reason to choose one or the other, I can do both.
I’d like to thank you, Sabotabby, and most of the other commenters. This really has been a reasoned discussion, with a lot of good things said. This is what the gun debate should be like.
Eeek. No, the vast majority of the United States is NOT in a world where the odds of someone pulling a gun on a church or a school assembly or a classroom are so high that individuals deem carrying and wielding guns to be their best options for safety. That’s Zing’s point–trying to paint it as if it IS is the fallacy. You are incredibly unlikely to get shot in church, or a school assembly, or a classroom.
See, and this is the point that interested me: the quotation I quoted in my earlier post showed a way of thinking about society and about human interaction that is pretty much completely at odds with the way I see the world and the society in which we live.
I think it’s entirely possible for people to carry guns around and work for social change. I personally don’t think that a gun is the most effective form of personal protection around, and I’m unwilling to use a tool whose misuse can go that tragically wrong that easily. I don’t trust myself that much (and before anyone asks, I don’t drive a car, either. Cars are dangerous, and people who are easily distracted by shiny things should think twice before driving one). Sure, if I had a gun I could shoot an assailant, if I could access the gun, shoot accurately, and be sure that nobody else would get hurt as I was trying to defend myself. Given the risks of accidentally hurting someone else, carrying a gun is not a risk I’m willing to take.
I don’t believe my options narrow down to “Carry a gun or be a victim of violence.” I believe that rhetoric that promotes only those two options effectively diverts our attention from questions of how to more effectively reduce the number of angry, desperate, disenfranchised people wandering around with enormous grudges, and comes perilously close to blaming victims of violence for not being sufficiently violent not to have violence enacted upon them.
I do think that culture is a powerful factor in creating violent people. I think that a culture that rewards violence and that exhorts people to commit violent acts is going to see more violent responses to stress. On a more obvious level, I think a culture in which a significant number of people carry guns is going to have more gun violence. Culture is one factor in anything systemic.
You’re right, Guav, that it doesn’t need to be an either/or question, but personal safety/social change frequently is (on both sides of the debate). Frequently people get so worked up at the very idea of people carrying guns/people taking away their right to carry guns, that they want to debate the merits of carrying a gun, endlessly.
Glad you’re enjoying the convo, at least.
Shorter Me: What Lisa said.
The fact the gunloons would have you ignore is that JD Adkisson had his guns–despite a record of mental instability, domestic violence, and minor criminal conduct–because the gunloons demanded he have easy access to firearms.
Thus, their solution is to ensure *more* guns get into the hands of folks who make JD Adkisson look like the paragon of mental health.
So, when one of these whackjobs gets upset because their favorite team loses or their alphabet spaghetti-o’s is missing the letter “Q” and decides to shoot up a school or a church in retribution—the gunloons can demand even more access to firepower.
An neverending cycle.
BTW, it is inappropriate to call them “gun fucks.” A large part of their problem relates to sexual dysfunction and social retardation–so the term is really misplaced.
It’s also important to note that there is not one organization or group that advocates a total gun ban. Yet, the fiction that there is fuels the gunloons.
OTOH, gunloons oppose even the most benign gun control measures.
Why?
Because they believe requiring gun owners to be physically and mentally competent is some great burden. That a requirement that gunowners have a rudimentary understanding of the care and operation of their weapon is unreasonable.
Today, anyone can procure virtually any firearm–without restriction. Yet, the gunloon believes even this fact is too restrictive. So, when I see folks like Guav and Jon Sullivan pretend they alone stand against criminal hordes–it makes me laugh.
Oh, good, JadeGold’s here.
Self-defense is a basic and essential human right, Jade. Sorry, I’ve been held up and threatend too many times to ever let anyone keep me from being armed.
As for my comments about folks wanting to diasrm the disabled, have a read: Lisa Kansas: “I think guns are awesome and I believe that the Second Amendment does grant US citizens the constitutional right to private gun ownership. However, I also think that it’s pretty retarded to expect a bunch of kids and/or disabled folks to carry a gun around and defend themselves–clearly that’s not anything remotely resembling a solution to the problem of armed nutjobs busting into crowded venues and opening fire.”
A) Lisa, just what is your problem with those adults among us least able to defend themselves having access to the single best means of self-defense ever developed?
B) There’s no “solution” to nutjobs trying to take down a crowd of folks for attention and/or a spectacular death. They will do it. We can, however, make the price of so doing as high as possible at every level, from opposing them in the act (as brave Unitarian-Universalists did in Knoxville) to stiff sentencing to making fun of them as the miserable losers they are. No matter what one does to reduce the number of criminals and loonies, they will always be there and society’s first line of defense against them is the good citizen on the scene. In a free and civilized society, police are second responders.
Jade thinks I’m on the same side as the nut in Knoxville. I’m not. (Available evidence implies that he ws a prohibited person, who shouldn’t have been able to buy a firearm. Gee, laws failed. Again).
“And frankly, I fervently hope that most people do NOT start carrying guns. They already do enough damage with their fuckin’ CARS and they even have to get a license proving they’ve learned how to operate THOSE.” Actually, there are many circumstances under which they do not; you don’t even have to have a license to buy a car and you don’t need one to drive on your own land. Many people take cars for granted (they shouldn’t; driving’s not a protected right). I don’t take my sidearm and the responsibility that comes with it for granted nor do I bear either lightly.
I see Roberta X has armed herself with a full arsenal of red herrings, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.
Note she claims self-defense is a basic human right. Who has claimed it isn’t? The question she studiously avoids is what constitutes self-defense and what constitutes a threat to public safety. For example, if I believe mining my front yard is a necessary self-defense measure–is that reasonable? If I have an alcohol and/or substance abuse problem, should I have an automatic weapon for self-defense? What if I’m a felon, with a history of violent crime; should I be permitted to buy any gun I please?
When Roberta X claims to having been held up and threatened “too many times,” I can only surmise Roberta X has very likely been an accomplice to her difficulties. We know, for a fact, that most instances of gun violence occur between intimate acquaintances, family members, and friends rather than the unknown assailant.
Roberta X claims to be on the opposite side as Adkisson. She claims gun laws failed. The reality, however, is very different. Gun laws didn’t fail because they weren’t there; they simply didn’t exist. And folks like Roberta X–claiming her God-given right to any firearm—made access to firearms easily available to Adkisson. She blithely claims there’s no solution to random nutcases committing acts of violence. Actually, there is. Like most solutions, it’s not 100% perfect. But it beats claiming there’s nothing to be done but let everyone arm themselves to the teeth.
You see, this is a standard gunloon argument. All gun control must be 100% perfect and infallible or it must be rejected. Yet, the tens of thousands we lose annually to gun homicides are perfectly acceptable. We hear how Roberta X bears the responsibility of gun ownership with gravity. But these are just words; she certainly isn’t putting her money where her mouth is. Gun violence costs everyone hundreds of billions of dollars annually. We all get to pay for Roberta X’s claims of responsibility.
Again, there is no organization or group in this country that advocates a total ban on gun ownership. Yet, most gunloon groups advocate complete access to firearms without restriction.
“A) Lisa, just what is your problem with those adults among us least able to defend themselves having access to the single best means of self-defense ever developed?”
Another poster already covered that:
“Nobody said “the disabled” shouldn’t have access to guns. What Sabotabby [lump me in with Sabo too] said was that guns are not accessible to “people with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from safely operating guns”—she didn’t lump all people with disabilities into one group, but specified that some people’s disabilities prevent them from being able to use guns safely.
A person with a bad leg might be able to safely own and operate a gun. A person with limited, uncorrectable vision might face some difficulties operating a gun. A person who needs medication in order to quiet the voices in their head might not be the safest candidate for gun ownership. A person who lives with a chronic illness might be just fine and dandy. Sabo referred to people whose disabilities preclude gun ownership and operation.”
Jadegold:
Registration and related gun control measures aren’t considered benign by most gun owners, because they are seen as a precursor to confiscation. Other than those, can you point out a couple of benign gun control measures that would have a meaningful impact on misuse, without undue impact or inconvenience for gun owners?
Lisa & Zing:
No, you’re right—the odds of any of us getting caught up in one of these high-profile public shootings is infinitesimally small. I didn’t mean to tie what I was saying to these public shootings specifically. What I meant to to say is that we do live in a world where Very Bad People do Very Bad Things, and quite frequently.
I live/work in the NYC metropolitan area, so I am not able to CARRY a handgun—I actually cannot even own one—and I don’t know that if I was allowed to carry one if I would. I do, however, want to have a firearm for home defense. It is precisely because of my past experiences that I feel this way.
So I agree that most people will never be a victim of a life-threatening violent crime for which they might have to defend themselves with a firearm. However, most people will also never get accidentally shot by a law-abiding gun owner either, or caught in the crossfire of a concealed carry holder firing back at a criminal, yet those examples are frequently used to justify a gun-control position.
Both sides of the debate are interested in their own safety, and are trying to protect themselves against something that will probably never happen to them—there difference is just in the conclusions that we’ve come to on how best to ensure our safety, I guess.
Roberta, you know Jadegold is a troll. Don’t even waste your time reading his comments.
Jade’s not only a troll, she, he or it blames the victim. Baby, I was held up by complete strangers, while going about my lawful occasions in areas I had every reason to believe were safe. On average, they were; the odds broke wrong for me. Get over it. Guess you’ve been lucky? How nice for you.
Also, in my perfect utopia, Jade would either learn about the many gun laws in this country or stop making false claims; better yet, try both. There are background checks for all commercial firearm purchases (even at gun shows!) and many limitations on weapon types; these include laws restricting short-barreled rifles and shotguns and prohibitions on the sale of fully-automatic weapons other than those already registered with the Feds by the mid-80s. (Yes, Uncle Sam tracks them and their owners. Transferring them calls for a lot of paperwork and a $200 tax stamp and that doesn’t even take State-level restrictions into account). There are piles of gun laws in the US. They work about as well as laws on any other subject: they restrict the law-abiding and are ignored by the lawless.
The UK is (on paper) “gun free.” Yet gun deaths are on the increase. Turns out crimials do not bother to obey laws! Funny, that — but not amusing at all to Britons who can no longer defend themselves from human predators. “Gun violence” is just a subset of “violence,” and the way to stop violent aggression once it commences is in the act, by applying a greater and opposite force at the earliest opportunity. A gun, a knife, an ax, a screwdriver: they are only tools. They have no volition. They will be used for ill — why stop them from being used for good? Unless you are an ally of evil, perhaps.
Lisa, firearms are already not legally available to people who have been adjudged mentally defective or crazy. Done deal. I still can’t see your problem with the physically handicapped — other than a lack of empathy? If they’re mentally adults and not round the bend, they have as much right to make up their own minds about being armed as anyone else.