Cranky Chicks with Guns
Freedom Is Just Another Word
Gun Blogs
Miami County Open Carry
Snark And Boobs
The Minute Man
Walls Of The CityIn reading an interesting post by Mike W. over at Another Gun Blog, I discovered an interesting conversation with R. Scott over at Foggy Bottom Line. I was going to make a post to rebut some of the things he said over there but the more I kept saying, the more it has turned into a post of my own.
Mr. Scott,
Briefly stated, I think that general gun ownership is a bad idea, from both a “most people are too irresponsible, stupid, or just plain evil to own guns” practical standpoint and because I think placing the safety and freedom of society in the hands of individuals harms us normatively by making collective action more difficult.
Where do you place Law Enforcement with regards to having weapons, since you say that most civilians are to stupid to carry them? They are no better than civilians in terms of laws. Many police officers do stupid things as well. Don’t get me started on the last 5 years of SWAT involvement. How about the Airport Officer who brandished his service revolver to scare the ex-boyfriend of a girl he’s seeing. The Dayton Police Officer who lost his AR15 rifle from the roof of his car? Yet I will go out on a limb and presume that, in your mind, they are trained and don’t face any of the same issues that I do in my day-to-day carry. They are the “only one’s”.
Just because you are a LEO doesn’t mean you have more training than a citizen. Current nationally accepted statistics are that most LEO-involved firefights happen between 3 – 7 yards away and that the police hit only about 20% of the time. A book written in 1997, “Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws.” claims that 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person, while only about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
I do not believe that the Founders intended to protect an individual right to be armed, nor that such a right is not subject to modification by society. While our system must protect minorities against tyrannical majorities, rights are contestable and depend on social agreement, nor [sic] violent assertion of self-proclaimed entitlement.
I disagree and if you have read any of the Federalist papers you would too. The Founders made their points very clear. The 2nd amendment was exactly to protect an individuals right to be armed. They had just overthrown a hostile government and fought for freedom (America’s first terrorists, our forefathers). Why would they have even considered disarming the public when it was the 3% of the civilian public that brought about that freedom? You cannot have a reasoned discourse if you are going to insist that the 2nd amendment speaks only to the nation’s militia, which by the way, I am in by Federal law. If you have read the Federalist papers, you would know that they wanted civilians to have the same weapons as the infantry soldier. The only reason that this is still up for debate is either a) gun-control advocates either disagree with this because it doesn’t fit the way they want to see the world or b) they see the Constitution as something malleable, something that can be changed. You show this attitude with your “self-proclaimed entitlement” comment. Our rights are not entitlements and the Constitution was designed to “protect” those rights. Why do you think it takes 2/3’s of the states to make an amendment? It wasn’t intended to be easily changed, despite how you may feel about it. The Founders didn’t agree with society and chose violent assertion of their unalienable rights. If they had not done so, you would be speaking with a British accent. While I recognize your type, I do not believe in the destruction of America to build it back up or “fundamentally” change our society because you happen to be fearful or detest something.
Also, while I understand the point you are trying to make, I think you are being a bit disingenuous here:
The possibility of accidental discharge is positive and nonzero, however small it might be, and therefore carrying a weapon is at the margin more dangerous than not having one.
First, it is a very rare thing that there is ever an accidental discharge. You mean negligent discharge. Someone failed in some way through negligence. Firearms tend not to go off by themselves. With a little common sense, they are a very rare thing indeed. While the possibility is there (positive and nonzero), I disagree that it can be interpreted to mean the margin is more dangerous than not having one. You are looking through this with the eyes of someone who has never been victimized. Those who have been hurt, or worse killed, while unarmed with no real way to fight back, would argue with you about the dangers of not being armed. I can only imagine that those people would have surely wished for there to be someone armed to protect them or to be armed themselves. I can give you story after story of people who were armed and would have probably died if they weren’t.
While reading your position, I can only judge your words by my experience and those of people I know. I, and those of my armed friends, train ourselves to follow a set of rules. We do not violate these rules. Because these rules are not to be violated, we can minimize the possibility of negligently hurting someone. I can guarantee you that as long as I do not violate two of the four rules, no damage will be done. One rule violated is a shame but doesn’t present much danger. I train to hit what I shoot at, so as to minimize any innocent persons from being shot.
I see the minor chance of hurting someone unintentionally so slight that it behooves me to carry at all times because I do not pick the place and time of my victimization. I carry because I choose not to be a victim. That simple mindset sends a message to those predators who would do me harm. I come across as a confident man who will not be victimized. They will pick someone easier. I train so that I never have to pull my firearm from my holster. I can’t possibly see that as being inherently more dangerous than not carrying at all, where I have no real choice about defending myself.
Whereas you see logically implied risk, I assert that you may be looking at this logically, but through a narrow scope. You cast off all other variables simply because of an emotional need to make a firearm dangerous. That pistol in my holster will not go off by itself. So the danger of carrying it has not increased. It is an inanimate object. The danger only escalates as I or someone else interacts with it (pulling it out of the holster). Therefore, theoretically the danger is only increased if/when there is a need to use it. Since you say the odds of me having to use it are low, logically the danger of carrying it is low as well. (I will give that you made this thought process a possibility where you comment that many people feel they can mitigate the risk. I do feel that way and have and could give you more examples as to why. Quite simply, I probably shoot more than most law enforcement officers who shoot in the course of their job and not as a hobby.)
You point out the Harvard study where gun ownership is linked to increase in homicides. By being selective in saying “homicides”, you do not take into account all violent crime. Gary Kleck produced a report, in 1997, that showed that 6,849 crimes were averted every day, 92% of the time by merely showing a firearm. John Lott produced an incredibly thorough study in 1996 that showed a definite reduction in crime after carry laws were enacted. Gun control hasn’t worked. Gun rights have. States that have the least restrictions tend to also have the least amount of crime. England banned handguns in 1997. In 4 years, their gun crime doubled and their overall violent crime went up 118%.
For the record, you may or may not know the background of Gary Kleck (guy I just mentioned above, if you are only skimming so you can quickly reply to what I wrote to show me how wrong I am). He is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America
As for John Lott, his research shows that adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats.… The number of accidental handgun deaths each year is fewer than 200. Our estimates imply that if the states without “shall issue” laws were to adopt them, the increase in accidental handgun deaths would be at most nine more deaths per year. This is small indeed when compared to the at least 1,570 murders that would be avoided.”
It seems to me that you would prefer to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. To me, that’s unacceptable. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a “safe” one with the government as chief nanny.
Update: I am having a problem with the comment plugin that I installed. It seemed to be working until I actually had the first comment since my move and it seems to have imploded on me. My apologies to Mr. Scott for not being able to post his comment. I am willing to email it back to him and have him try to post again (if he doesn’t have a copy of it).
One of the things he pointed out is that his blog is named Foggy Bottom Line. Of course, he is correct and I’ve fixed it in the article. I was up till very early writing this post and just wasn’t thinking well enough to catch the mistake. I knew it was Foggy Bottom when I started but it didn’t make it from my brain to the keyboard.
No related posts.
Before getting to the substance of your post, please allow me to point out that the name of my blog is Foggy Bottom Line. Reasoned Discourse is the title of the individual post you linked to.
With that out of the way, you make several points here that I would like to address. First, you claim that law enforcement officials are incompetent, yet we permit them to carry firearms, and so presumably should not limit civilian firearm use on those grounds. But the solution here is not to arm more incompetent people – it is to properly train law enforcement officials. Whether or not the police are properly trained has no bearing on my original claim: that most Americans are simply too stupid or evil to trust with firearms.
Next, you make some claims about the contents of the Federalist Papers, yet offer no quotes to support your assertions, and cite no particular arguments therein. As a general matter, Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the newspaper editorials which make up what we today call The Federalist Papers as arguments for ratification of the Constitution, not as expressions of their political theory. They in fact did not argue in favor of the Second Amendment in these editorials, because none of the three believed a bill of rights was necessary at all. Hamilton, in Federalist 84 for example, wrote: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are intended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.”
Some gun rights supporters claim that Madison, in Federalist 46, expressed a belief in an armed population as a defense against an oppressive central government. In fact, Madison wrote “Besides the advantage of being armed, over the people of almost any other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprise of ambition.” (Emphasis mine).
Quoting further, in regard to Europe: “But were the people to possess the advantage of local governments, chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions surrounding it.”
Madison clearly discussed armed citizens in the context of a militia controlled by state governments, not as bands of armed libertarians running around taking matters into their own hands. He thought subordinate governments, as collectors of popular will and organizers of the militia, provided the bulwark against tyranny of a Federal Government. He could have specifically invoked the power of individual armed citizens in Federalist 46, but did not.
Third, it is gun rights advocates who claim a right as an entitlement by characterizing rights as inalienable – that is, not subject to infringement by others. For more on my thoughts on the nature of rights you may want to read this post, where I argue that rights – both the macro concept of the “right” as a justice claim and micro concepts of specific “rights” which accrue to humans – depend on socially constructed inter subjective understandings about proper forms of human interaction. They are not “natural,” and because they depend on the normative framework humans developed, they are subject to change as this framework changes. I am happy to discuss this further, but please characterize my claims properly.
This is getting quite long, so I will wrap it up. Weapons do in fact sometimes discharge by themselves, as anyone who has combat training – as I do – can confirm. Still, you correctly point out that users can mitigate the added risk of carrying a firearm. Nevertheless, this risk is still positive and non-zero, and this is the only claim I make about this.
And finally, Kleck and Lott. Kleck used the sort of flawed statistical analysis which suggests that gun owners inflict 207,000 wounds in the course of defending themselves from attacks. This is demonstrably false, and places his other statistical conclusions in doubt. And I frankly don’t understand how you can cite Lott with a straight face. Using his work – based on falsified data – places your entire argument in doubt. He is a liar and a hack.
I get that your position on the subject differs from my own. Fair enough. But you should be able to support your views with better arguments than a spurious connection between civilians and law enforcement officials, a poor sense of what Madison, Hamilton and Jay actually wrote in the Federalist Papers–not to mention a poor sense of just what these essays were for – and poorly done or fabricated studies of defensive gun use.
Try again.
My claim isn’t that law enforcement are incompetent but I see what you did there. I point out that armed citizens are more competent through examples and studies. But because you believe, in your heart, that the American public are stupid and incompetent, you read that as “Gee, look how horrible trained professionals are. If they can’t manage it, how would the private citizen possibly do it”.
Inalienable can be transferred by consent and I don’t know any gun rights advocate who does this. Unalienable are rights that are natural and cannot be taken away. It is not “gun rights advocates” who claim this but every American who believes in the Declaration of Independence in which Thomas Jefferson says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
If you believe that rights are not natural, that unalienable rights do not exist, than surely you also support that all men are not created free or with respect to those rights, that all men are equal? You could make a case for slavery, sir. Honestly, when I look at a law or the Constitution, I question, “how does this preserve or protect liberty”. Because I believe that is how the Framers approached the Bill of Rights. I think that’s how it should be approached. Does a law make behavior that hurts others criminal? Carrying a gun doesn’t hurt others. Shooting does. Having a shell casing in your pocket hurts nobody. I’m looking at you Massachusetts.
In the post you linked, you comment about rights that “we have written down as specific limits on the power of government, such as prohibitions against infringement on a “right to keep and bear arms.” We did not write down the right. We wrote down a protection of that right. The Bill of Rights is a misnomer. It is a protection of those rights not a granter of the right. Because the Framers saw these rights as being inalienable or natural rights to all men, they didn’t feel they needed to write them down. It was generally understood. This is why some of the Framers didn’t want to create a bill of rights. They were generally understood. Everyone would get that it was a right as it was natural. Your entire post, on rights, sets America back 220 years and would rip apart the fabric of American culture by the destruction of the Constitution. Completely un-American and smacks of the kind of “redistributive change” and “transformation of America” that our current government has fed the American people since Obama’s campaign. If this is the kind of rhetoric you are going to put out, there is no reasonable discourse that you and I can have. We start from two points of the spectrum. Your particular beliefs would allow the government to do anything they want.
Stan, I come from a long line of military people so the fact that you have combat training and can attest to guns discharging by themselves means little to me. Put a gun on a table and it will not discharge by itself. Ever. The gun is not a sentient being and cannot do anything without help. I know it is not totally uncommon for a AR15 to have a discharge known as a slam fire but that is specific to firing pins without springs. There is nothing in the weapon to stop the firing pin from slapping the primer when you charge the bolt. This is a known issue and one that is usually handled during training. Handguns generally don’t have the same issues. Without specific situations, I cannot otherwise comment to the discharges you allude to and shame on you for just barely mentioning them along with your now “expert” level of knowledge because you had combat training.
Cars kill people. Ask Toyota about the very recent issues of cars accelerating on their own and brakes not working. By your logic, people wouldn’t get into a car because the risk of being in an accident or causing one is “positive and nonzero”. While drunk drivers kill a lot of people, we don’t ban alcohol or cars. Our response? We make more laws. Yet people still end up driving drunk and killing people. Why don’t you ban cars?
Advocates of gun control make certain arguments but are unwilling to treat guns and gun laws like we do all other laws. Many advocates say Freedom of Speech is protected and then quickly point out that “yelling fire in a movie house isn’t”. Using gun control advocates logic, we would all be issued gags for every movie. Why is the act of yelling fire illegal? Because it induces panic. Panic leads to stampedes where the chance of injury is positive and non-zero. We don’t ban the right to speak for fear someone might yell fire. We punish the guy who abuses it by putting someone in harm’s way.
Concerning Kleck and Lott. What else would you say? They destroy your belief so obviously their research is flawed and they are liars. You tear down the person to discredit their studies. Kleck was “asked” to do the study by Democrats who then didn’t like what he showed. He was one of you guys until he did the research and it changed his mind. While he is still a Democrat, he is not a gun-hating liberal any longer, after doing the research. If he is a liar, he’s lying to himself.
Stan, nothing I say can I use to support my views. You don’t believe in any of it so no argument can be made. Every statement I utter, you will have a reply because you’ve already made up your mind and you don’t believe in anything that disagrees with your standpoint. I have the natural right to self-defense and a protected right to carry a firearm. You don’t believe in the Constitution or natural rights. They are negotiable. Armed citizens save more lives than they take. Nope, you don’t believe that one either. You don’t believe the studies that prove that. I’m going to guess that you also don’t believe the studies that prove gun control has reduced crime. It can’t. Criminals don’t follow laws. They will aquire guns any way they can even if that means stealing.
Now you didn’t answer my question on where you stood on allowing police officers guns. We know your views about Americans who are “stupid or mean”. Do you think that only smart and nice Americans become police officers?
You also didn’t comment to the fact that being unarmed is inherently more dangerous than being armed. 5 million victims (your data) would prove that, I would think. A number of those may have been prevented had they had a gun.
Although you dislike anything that “overemphasizes individualism at the expense of our need to act collectively”, I will leave you with this quote. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” — Ayn Rand.
The single largest lie instituted on the American people would be that we need to worry more about the collective than we do about individual rights. It is that mindset that you push here that has led to a healthcare bill that would punish millions of people for the collective few. Instead of working to control costs, the government would rather tax, fine, or punish those who are more successful. It is the same with gun control. Instead of keeping the dangerous behind bars, you would rather remove the teeth from society because society with teeth is more dangerous to you than the criminals.
There is a lot to unpack here, but I will start by saying that while I may have misquoted the Declaration of Independence, both “inalienable” and “unalienable” mean the same thing: “Not to be transferred to another; not alienable.” In fact, inalienable is simply a modern form of the archaic “unalienable.”
Further, “every American who believes in the Declaration of Independence” does not share your view of gun rights as not alienable. Only gun rights advocates make this claim, as I point out. The Declaration, while pretty, does not support this claim since it says nothing about gun rights or their sources.
I certainly agree that all men are equal in the sense that all justice claims have equal moral force, and it is not necessary for men to have been “created,” nor for rights to have sources in the nature of man, for this to be so. I claim only that rights depend on shared understandings about right, wrong, and how humans should interact – indeed, on the very definition of terms like “human” and “citizen.” These understandings, or norms, are always contestable and contested, and subject to change. We know this because they have changed: we no longer share a normative acceptance of slavery as a property right, for example.
In any event, I don’t believe that you yourself believe that rights are “inalienable” (or “unalienable,” if you prefer), unless you advocate application of Constitutional protections to non-citizens. That we don’t do this as a general matter suggests that “rights,” not to mention, our Constitution, have no universal application, and therefore have no natural source.
The Framers included the Bill of Rights largely as a political compromise to secure ratification. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay argued against this compromise not because they saw “rights” as generally understood and therefore not requiring protection, but because of fear that enumerating some rights would leave others unprotected. They turned out to be correctly worried: see for example the debate over whether the Constitution protects a right to privacy.
And by the way, I notice that you still haven’t offered any of the “very clear” points from The Federalist Papers supporting your claim that “The 2nd amendment was exactly to protect an individuals right to be armed.”
This is once again becoming a lengthy comment, so I’ll offer just a few more points:
Heat or static electricity can cause a fire arm to discharge in the absence of human agency. Though rare, it is possible, and creates a positive nonzero risk.
Automobiles have uses other than killing things or practicing to kill things – guns to not. Besides, I never advocated prohibitions on owning weapons, only regulation of ownership. So I’m not sure why so many gun rights advocates keep asking me whether I would ban cars.
The claim that “armed citizens save more lives than they take” only makes sense if you do not count criminals as “armed citizens.” They are in fact simply armed citizens – until they become criminals by shooting someone.
And I never called Kleck a liar – just a bad statistician. It is Lott who lied, by fabricating his data and then pretending to be a female student to back up his claim that he had lost it in a computer mishap. This is an attack on Kleck’s research, not his person. Whether or not he is or used to be a Democrat makes no difference with respect to the value of his analysis. I think it’s a hoot that you accuse me of dismissing this bad research because it does not fit my views, when it is you who accepts and cites not just poor analysis but fabricated data because it fits yours.
And finally, I’m not sure what Obama or health care have to do with anything, unless you think calling me a collectivist insults me. It does not. If thinking about how humans can act collectively to improve social life and human interaction differentiates me from Ayn Rand – a borderline insane hedonist who wrote (very badly!) about individualism to justify her violation of prevailing norms – then I am happy to carry that label.
You are absolutely insane.
***Updated
Stan,
Alright. I stand by my “your insane” comment. I would be doing my readers a disservice if I didn’t at least tear your comments down.
I will quote one of several references to the differences of the two words. ““Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.”
I will quote you that “it is gun rights advocates who claim a right as an entitlement by characterizing rights as inalienable”. It is you who said that we claim a “right” as an entitlement by characterizing rights as inalienable. So are we claiming a right as an entitlement by saying it is inalienable or are we now claiming gun rights as inalienable? You are confusing to say the least and it’s not the first time you have forgotten your own words. And for the record, just because we once owned slaves doesn’t mean it was ever right. Just because you want to ban the right to self-defense doesn’t mean it’s right either. Social acceptance may change. Inalienable rights never should.
And yes, if you knew anything about me, you would know that I believe rights are inalienable to all men. Even though we imprison someone for a crime against society, their rights are never removed, but only suspended and not entirely. Do we not give visitors to our country the same rights that you have on freedom of speech, etc? I can’t remember that last time we told a green-card that he can only speak when spoken to. And yes, I am very disappointed that we do not restore criminals rights after they have served their time. “Do the crime, do the time” we say. Except once you have made a mistake, accidentally or on purpose, you pay for the rest of your life, don’t you? No matter what the degree of that mistake was, it will haunt you. Now, I can almost hear you now. “but you would let dangerous criminals vote and carry weapons, etc?” If they are no longer recognized as criminals because they served the prescribe time, yes. They should get to come back to society with the full rights restored. If you have a problem with unsuspending criminals rights, maybe you should hold them in jail longer. Which is also my answer for “criminals are dangerous and shouldn’t have weapons”. Enforce the law and remove them from society. Until that is being done, I don’t want to hear whiny complaints about guns in society.
“Some” Framers included the Bill of Rights because of your reasons given. “Some”. And I didn’t realize we had a debate over whether or not the Constitution protected a right of privacy. I was to understand that was decided. It isn’t an expressed right, but the 5th, 9th, and 14th have been held to generally protect privacy. While you disagree with my assertion that the Framers argued against the bill of right because they thought to be unneeded,I will point out to you that Hamilton said in Federalist 84 “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”. Congress has no power beyond what is already given. Yet you are right that they worried about the unenumerated rights, which is why they created the 9th Amendment “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I haven’t offered you anything concerning the Federalist papers because I’m not going to bother when you can’t get inalienable rights. There is no point to me trying to convince you of something you’ve already decided. As I said in the last comment – to stop you before you made this point – you don’t believe that the 2nd extends beyond the militia or the military so there is no point in going further with the Federalist papers to make my points. You quantify it with “clearly” because you know that none of this discussion is clear or there would be no debate at all. You quantify it so that you can set the rules to the discussion. Typical debate strategy.
They are lengthy comments because this is a discussion and discussions don’t work from quick sound bites. You are free to not rebut.
I really can’t believe that you are stretching to the “heat or static electricity” argument. Pistols sitting in holsters do *not* get hot enough to fire. After a lot of firing, it is *possible* for a round to go off but that isn’t the situation we find ourselves discussing. Also, if you realy believed that, you wouldn’t put gas in your car. You have to do better than that. I say without specific instances I can’t comment and you come back with “in rare situations heat or electricity can make the gun go off”. Sure it’s possible. It’s possible the sun will explode tomorrow too. How many times has this happened exactly? In all the guns carried in the US daily, how often does this rare instance happen? You talk about lottery odds and come back with this?
Guns do have uses beyond killing things or practicing to kill things. You do know that the Biathlon in the Olympics involves skiing and then shooting, correct? Guns are used for sport and many people use them without any thoughts about killing. Again, a nice way to steer the debate to things you want to try and defend. Besides, use has nothing to do with the argument, so I don’t know why you are bringing it up. The restrictions you make effectively ban guns to the home. So I will change the analogy. You can own your car but because you MIGHT kill someone with it, you should really leave it in the garage at home, with your gun. Is that better?
Once a person becomes a criminal, they are removed from the concept of “armed citizen” because you know that when we say Armed Citizen we mean, law-abiding people. You want to make this issue so gray that nobody could debate it with you, Stan. That is not reasoned discourse. That is bullshit debate tactics. I am not going to build 5 rules of defense to my comment to get past the Stanmeter. Law-abiding citizens who carry a weapon save more lives in defense of themselves than they take by accidentally shooting someone in the course of defending someone. If they intentionally shoot someone, they are a criminal who are using the gun for an evil deed, not as a justified shooting in the course of protecting themselves. You are better than this. Stop peeing down my leg.
Actually you called Kleck a hack. Concerning Lott, you have third-party proof to your accusations that is not being brought forth by the Joyce foundation, the Brady bunch, or any other anti with an agenda right? Actually Kleck still is a Democrat, although I can see why you would get confused because the moment he advocates guns, he can’t be a Democrat. Gotcha. No, the gun-advocating Democrat comment was only to be used to point out that his agenda was to prove “your” arguments. He “had” an agenda. He found that his study didn’t not justify his position and he changed it, like all honorable scientists. If he is a “hack” at least he’s an honest one that believes in his data. He didn’t “hide” the data like the scientists did in Climategate. He didn’t email people to see how he could repress the data when he found that his position was wrong. That proves to me that his “agenda” didn’t cloud his study. Like this study from the Joyce Foundation did. http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf and http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm. I’m sure you stand by *their* work.
This study used instances of a CCW holder shooting someone illegally to prove their point. In every instance, the CCW didn’t help them with the crime. They could have done it without the CCW, but the shootings are used to indicate that CCW’s are bad or CCW holders are bad people. CCW’s are for law-abiding citizens. The criminals already have their weapons and don’t need one. The fact that these people had CCW’s doesn’t matter. Another ploy used by the Joyce Foundation and the Brady Campaign is to use every shooting as a violent criminal shooting even though some are the shootings from people defending themselves. They have used justified shootings by police officers. They see no shooting as justified.
You can have your hoot if you want. The fact that you call it “bad research” doesn’t make it so. You ignored data. You didn’t attack it. You called Lott a liar and Kleck a hack. You haven’t actually proven the research was bad. You made accusations. You can attack Rand if you want. That doesn’t mean she was wrong in her statement. You do that a lot, don’t you? Attack the person and not the statement. Discredit the person and you discredit the work. That is right out of the Liberal playbook. Personally, I have nothing against in people working together to improve life and human interaction, but not when it is done in a manner that affects a person’s rights.
You didn’t explain to me why we don’t gag people so they can’t yell “fire” in movie houses. Please explain to me how you consider “we must regulate guns so people can’t carry them beacuse of what might happen” but we don’t regulate our other rights the same way. Again, until you do so, please don’t bother responding.
As I said before which you didn’t comment to as well. I have the natural right to self-defense and a protected right to carry a firearm. You don’t believe in the Constitution or natural rights. They are negotiable. Armed citizens save more lives than they take. You don’t believe that one. You don’t believe the studies that prove that. I’m going to guess that you also don’t believe the studies that prove gun control has reduced crime. It can’t. Criminals don’t follow laws. They will aquire guns any way they can even if that means stealing.
Because you believe things are negotiable, there is no more point of talk. Democrats see the Constitution as a living document. One that can be modeled to the way they see the world. I see that belief as one that is tearing the country apart. We were a conservative nation. Now our conservatives are progressives and liberal. We need to get back to our conservative values. If a law or regulation doesn’t preserve liberties, it doesn’t belong. We punish criminals. We don’t punish society and make everything criminal. That is the difference of where I start and where you start…
And lastly, I’m not surprised that being called a collectivist doesn’t insult you. Being that you hate Rand, seem to disdain the Constitution or at least remake it in your own image, I would also assume that you believe that the individual must sacrifice for the sake of the greater social good. You believe that we must all “do” for the “common good”. That, however, does not make men free but slaves to the state. That is a socialist notion and one in which I don’t abide. Once you go down that path, there isn’t anything to hold you back, as long as it’s for the common good. You know what Ayn Rand said.. “no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good.” She’s right. Self-defense, right to property, rugged individualism, and free markets. That is the way to return this Country to it’s former greatness. Your path leads to destruction.
Now that’s a witty riposte.
You must be the smartest man alive.