Dear Rachel -- do you honestly believe that you are qualified to address the issue of extremism?

[jazzhound]

Late last night I was clearing old programs from my DVR and I noticed that I hadn't watched the Wednesday edition of The Rachel Maddow Show. I think it's fair to describe myself as a Rachel fan in general -- she's obviously very sharp, very likable, and I enjoy the fact that she's able to engage the opposition without becoming unglued. (unlike some other MSNBC hosts) So anyway........I decided to watch the program, figuring I could fast-forward through segments which had become dated. One of her segments dealt (generally) with some of the extreme positions embraced by the RW --- including Republican politicians who believe that abortion should be outlawed even in cases where the women seeking abortions had been raped. This segment really caught my attention, because I'm aware that Ms. Maddow believes that citizens should not be allowed to keep firearms in their homes. Forget about concealed carry -- I'm talking here about the ability to defend oneself and ones family in ones own home. How do I know that Rachel feels this way? She said it on national television on The Jimmy Fallon Show:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon?ref=http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon

What is particularly troubling to me about Rachel's position is that she describes the anti-abortion position which compels a woman to carry a rapists child to full term as extreme, while believing that it's perfectly alright to prevent a woman from defending herself from the rape in the first place! As I've said -- I have a great deal of respect for Rachel Maddow.........but this (once again!) is an example of how otherwise thoughtful, intelligent progressives misplace their brains when it comes to the issue of the RKBA. News flash to Rachel: the notion that citizens should be barred from defending themselves in their own homes is an extreme view. If you don't think so -- kindly refer to the public surveys on the matter.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. I'll order the pizza... pepperoni OK? n/t

[cliffordu]

2. Yep, with some of those shrooms, too, M'kay??

[Warpy]

6. I think the 'shrooms might be the problem, already

It's no secret that most city dwellers would love it if every handgun in the country would simply vaporize.

Thugs would be disarmed only temporarily. They'd switch to clubs, tasers, knives, acid, and dozens of other means to do harm to their fellow citizens, but it's a nice fantasy to think they can be disarmed at all.

However, to call a mainstream urban opinion "extremist" is misguided. After all, most city dwellers think the swaggering gunners with their CCW permits are part of the problem, even if it's the potential problem of urban crossfire.

[PavePusher]

10. A "potential" that refuses to become a statistically meaningful reality.

(ETA: No matter how hard the firearms restriction activists wish it would happen, or claim that it will.)

Don't you just hate unrealized "potential"?

[jazzhound]

14. Could you please clarify this statement......

However, to call a mainstream urban opinion "extremist" is misguided.

Which mainstream urban opinion are you referring to here?

Thank you.

[SteveM]

175. Continued problems with lack of foundation, here...

"It's no secret that most city dwellers would love it if every handgun in the country would simply vaporize."

What data, cites, links support your "secret?" Are we safe in assuming that only a tiny handful of urban dwellers in Chicago will exercise their RKBA when Chicago is forced to end its prohibitionist scheme?

"Thugs would be disarmed only temporarily. They'd switch to clubs, tasers, knives, acid, and dozens of other means to do harm to their fellow citizens, but it's a nice fantasy to think they can be disarmed at all."

It's a "fantasy" because the thug/HyperPunk is ALREADY using firearms and doesn't need all that other stuff.

"However, to call a mainstream urban opinion "extremist" is misguided."

In light of any cites/data provided, we don't know if this "urban opinion" is "mainstream" or not. In fact, we don't know of any data, cites which indicate "...city dwellers think the swaggering gunners with their CCW permits are part of the problem..."

You have provided nothing AT ALL which supports your viewpoint, esp. the more colorful stereotypes.

[PavePusher]

203. I would say that any call to circumvent/ignore a portion of the Constitution...

is an "extremist" opinion.

Is it just me?

[friendly_iconoclast]

209. Nah, what we have is another example of BEIKVFMcG syndrome

"But Everyone I Know Voted For McGovern!" A statement attributed to a wealthy and connected New York Democratic supporter,

upon the occasion of Richard Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972. While true in and of itself, it shows that only

listening to the people who think like you do leads to an erroneous perception of reality.


I think this is a case of urban gun control supporters only listening those who already agree with them, and thinking

everyone save Glenn Beck fans agrees with them.

[SteveM]

232. I think you may need some Rolaids to go with that...

The position Rachel takes is extreme: She wishes those in their OWN HOME be prevented from defending themselves with firearms. Very, very extreme. What the Heller decision was all about.

Concerning "secrets," do you think that "most city dwellers" in Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami; Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio; Los Angeles and San Diego; New Orleans, Denver, St. Louis, Kansas City, etc., "would love it if every handgun in the country would simply vaporize?" I believe your "secret" statement is the real fantasy.

[bear425]

7. I like eggplant and anchovies. n/t

[jazzhound]

56. Hold the eggplant, and YES on the anchovies.

I'll have mine with shrooms, peppers, onion, pineapple, ham, sausage and pepperoni.

Thank you very much.

[sandnsea]

3. A gun can't get up and shoot a rapist

It's false security.

The only way to truly prevent rape is to change our culture and teach respect, not violence.

[jazzhound]

9. As usual, the facts don't support your emotion-based

beliefs.

FACT: When a woman is armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.*

FACT: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.**

* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979
** Dept. Of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey

The only way to truly prevent rape is to change our culture and teach respect, not violence.

And what exactly should women do until we reach this state of nirvana? Cross their fingers? Where's a compassionate liberal when you need one!

EDITED TO ADD: Ms. Maddow is clearly not pro-choice when it comes to a woman's right to choose between battling a rapist with her fists or a firearm.

[sandnsea]

83. I didn't say not to resist

And actually your numbers prove me more right than you.

68% of rapes are not completed. That means women are fighting the bastards off without a knife or gun.

The gun OR knife contributed in those cases, but you've got nothing to indicate how much self-defense skills contributed as well.

A society that didn't revolve around control and bullying and violence would go a lot farther to reduce rape than a gun.

[DongHa69]

91. I won't argue with you on that point

but until then, women and men should use the best tool available, whether it be a gun, knife, whistle or whatever.

[jazzhound]

94. No, you didn't say not to resist

but you clearly oppose a woman's right to choose. And that, AFAIK is hypocritical as all get out ------ assuming that you are pro-choice w/regard to abortion.

What greater civil right is there than the right to continue living when a criminal is threatening that right? And who appointed you Guardian of the Universe with the attendant right to tell others how to defend themselves?

[jazzhound]

99. You assume way too much.

68% of rapes are not completed. That means women are fighting the bastards off without a knife or gun.

It means absolutely no such thing. A rape can be interrupted for any number of reasons. The rapist can get spooked, he may not (ahem) be able to perform, or as in the case of my sister -- he may encounter a victim who totally freezes and cannot comply with his demand to remove clothing.

[NewMoonTherian]

230. I'm not a statistician...

but given the figures that you've accepted, and my rudimentary math skills, I'd say self-defense reduced successful rape attempts by 32%. Weapons reduced this figure by 90%. I'm making a couple of assumptions here:

1.) All or almost all rape attempts would succeed without resistance.
2.) People who carry a weapon are roughly as likely as the general population to have an average level of skill in self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Tell that to my cousin. She used a shot gun to scare off a rapist.

The guy had gotten into her home, exposed himself and declared his intention. He was savoring her fear before he attacked. But instead of trembling in fear, she was able to grab her mother's shotgun. He instantly changed his mind and ran away.

Now tell her that her mother's shotgun was false security.

[sandnsea]

81. And how often does that happen?

Usually the guy has attacked before the woman can even think to gouge his eyes out. Considering that, I'd rather depend on my own defensive skills than the luck of reaching a gun somewhere.

[DongHa69]

82. Thats fine

thats your choice, but shouldn't other women have the choice of using a gun to protect themselves, and BTW, it happens more often than you would think, it's all about situational awarenes, if a woman percieves a threat, then she or for that matter, he can be ready for an attack or hopefully, unass from the threat without any violence.

[jazzhound]

89. sandnsea doesn't believe that women deserve a choice

because for her gun "control" has nothing to do with protecting victims, and everything to do with control.

[sandnsea]

92. Guns won't end rape

Real Men will.

By teaching non-violence and respect for women. There is no other way.

[DongHa69]

93. But you are always going to have the criminal element

who doesn't give 2 hoots about the law so wouldn't you agree that a woman should have the option of carrying the best tool available to protect herself? And shouldn't a woman have the choice on whether or not to carry a gun?

[jazzhound]

95. So you deny that there will ALWAYS be a criminal element

that respects no laws and rights AND that you believe that you can reform everyone? All I can say is..............unbelievable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. And what do you expect other women to do while they're waiting for the world to change?

Sometimes we need to muddy the ideal with the real.

[spin]

130. Guns will not end rape and your plan won't either ...

Unfortunately, violence is a curse the human race has to live with.

Teaching non-violence and respect for women is worth a try and may reduce incidences of rape. Enabling women to effectively resist a rapist through self defense courses and teaching safety and proficiency with firearms can also serve to reduce the problem.

Many women today are beginning to take advantage of "shall issue" concealed carry laws and are obtaining the training and investing the time, money and effort to become licensed to "pack heat".

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes, "Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.
http://gunowners.org/wv26.htm

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19 emphasis added

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Often a combination of ideas can help to reduce or solve a problem.

[PavePusher]

140. An admirable goal, to be sure.

But until everyone is thusly educated, a gun can, and often does, do a respectable job of stopping a rape attempt.

[X_Digger]

84. "Usually"? Care to provide a cite? n/t

[spin]

126. If I may ask, what defensive skills do you have?

My daughter attended judo and jujitsu courses taught by one of the best instructors in the country.

The techniques he taught were effective, especially the tactics he taught in the jujitsu course. He always emphasized to his female students that they use the skills he taught to escape from an attack and to avoid attempting to defeat a much larger and stronger opponent. My daughter, even today, is only 5 foot 2" and weighs just 100 pounds soaking wet.

The skills she learned gave her tremendous confidence and did help her in several encounters. She also learned how to shoot a handgun from me and it was a handgun she used to stop an intruder making entry to our home as described in reply #118.

I am not demeaning your ability in any way. However you said, "Usually the guy has attacked before the woman can even think to gouge his eyes out." Hopefully you are aware that most martial arts classes teach "situational awareness". Practicing this technique should help eliminate MOST surprise attacks.

And for all I know, you may be the toughest and most prepared female in our country. You may be "Superwoman". If so, good for you! However, not every woman has your skills or training. They may be able to gain proficiency with a firearm far easier than learning a conventional martial art such as karate, judo or jujitsu.

My daughter's instructor used to tell his classes, "I may be an 8th degree black belt in Judo, but a man with a .45 auto is a 9th degree."

[RamboLiberal]

184. +1 from female 5th Dan & also a CCW holder

And kudos to your daughter's instructor for honesty!

[spin]

194. The instructors name is Ed Maley and he is a "legend" in Tampa Bay... ...

Prof. Ed Maley


Ed Maley is a legend, not just in Tampa Bay but across the world. Prof. Maley introduced martial arts to south Tampa while still a member of the US Air Force stationed at MacDill AFB in the late 50s.

His dojo has produced Olympians such as Dewey Mitchell, and many of the top Judo stars in the country.

Ed Has over 50 years of experience teaching and coaching Judo, and is nationally recognized as a Master, holding his 8th degree Black belt in Judo.

Ed has been involved with the YMCA, and The Brandon Recreation Department and many other organizations, dedicated to physical health and well being of youngsters.

His teaching style is one that has been copied by many of the top teachers of the sport, never duplicated.

This 8th Dan is a toughie, and is no one to mess with with, yet he is the most gentle person on the planet. Those that have come to know Ed love him, he has touched so many lives and positively influenced so many of our children.

For his work in the area of physical fitness and self defense, we proclaim Prof. Ed Maley a true Tampa Bay Legend.
http://www.teddwebb.com/legends/prof_ed_maley.html

[Hoopla Phil]

190. Excellent post.

[proteus_lives]

154. The point is, you should have both available to you.

What is the point of limiting your options and rights?

[Hoopla Phil]

155. And that is your choice. Would you deny another the ability to make their own choice?

[SteveM]

176. Is is about choice, no? You support choice, don't you? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

222. Too often.

[spin]

233. My daughter stopped a man forcing the sliding glass door of our home ...

open.

When he first saw her walk into the kitchen, he told her that he planned to rape her. He hadn't noticed the large frame revolver she had at her side. When she pointed it at him, he wisely decided to run.

[safeinOhio]

109. Your cousin did not

have her home properly secured in the first place. While I have no problem with home defense with firearms, if people had proper security, there would be little if any need to use that weapon. There are many sites on the net that can direct one to cheap and easy security for the home for less than a decent firearm, ammo and range time. Burglars and rapist are the easiest to deter. A sworn enemy, like an ex lover or spouse or business partner are harder to stop with security systems and a firearm would be needed.

[DongHa69]

119. Absolutly

the first line of defense is a secured domicile. In addition to a steel storm door with a locking device, we have a steel front door with a good lock and a good dead bolt and 2 dogs who will raise a racket if they sense anything out of the ordinary

[Hoopla Phil]

157. Why is it her responsibility to secure her place? Would you also suggest a woman

don a chastity belt before going out into public? It is the criminal that is the problem.

[RamboLiberal]

185. Oh bullcrap

Are going to put bars on all our windows? If you have windows your house is not totally secure.

And women are attacked in places other than the home.

[spin]

197. In the neighborhood that I lived in in Tampa ...

many of the homes had bars on the windows and bars in front of the door.

I never installed any. I really didn't want to feel I was living in a prison. I just had loaded firearms available throughout the house.

[DongHa69]

47. No, but a gun in the hand of a potential

rape victim is a very real defensive tool. And I do agree that we need to change our culture and teach respect but until then, the handgun is still the best tool for the job.

[cleanhippie]

50. Perhaps you are right.

But until that day comes, a gun is a good tool to have in order to help prevent rape, right?

[spin]

118. The handgun my daughter used to deter an intruder ...

breaking into our home wasn't false security.

The individual was forcing the sliding glass door in the kitchen open when my daughter walked into the room because the burglar alarm was sounding. She suspected that the sensors on the door weren't making proper contact and opening and closing the door might correct the problem. Fortunately, she grabbed her favorite revolver, a S&W Model 25-2 45acp target revolver which is the same size as a S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum.

At first the man didn't notice the large caliber handgun she was holding at her side as a kitchen counter blocked his view.

My daughter remembers that he said, "I'm going to rape you!"

She pointed the revolver at him and he ran.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. "barred from defending themselves" != "not allowed to keep firearms in the home"

defence can come from many things *other* than guns.


Anti-gun is significantly different than your interpretation.

[oneshooter]

11. However a firearm, with training, is the most efficient means of Defense available. n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

20. agreed

[jazzhound]

28. Statistics also show that the more lethal the tool of

defense, the lower the probability that the victim will be harmed.

[PavePusher]

13. Yet a gun is one of the most efficient, egalitarian tools available for the purpose.

All other methods are destined to rely on bodily force, automatically putting the defender at a disadvantage.

Personally, I don't think putting defenders/victims at a disadvantage is an intelligent or moral thing to do.

[Clovis Sangrail]

18. why would bodily force automatically put the defender at a disadvantage?

[jazzhound]

24. When it comes to self-defense, distance is your friend.

Especially when a woman is squared off against a (likely) physically stronger opponent.

Did you read my post re. the success rates of men vs. women in confronting attackers with a firearm? In such cases, the firearm is actually fired less than 10% of the time.

[Clovis Sangrail]

32. true but that doesn't answer the question why bodily force *automatically

puts defender at a disadvantage.

*less of an advantage because defence can't be done from 50' ?
sure

use bodily force being an dis/advantage is unique to each situation and there's *nothing* automatic about it.

[jazzhound]

41. It doesn't automatically put the defender at a disadvantage

but let's face it -- in a struggle between a 110 pd woman and a taller 175 pd man, who do you suppose has the advantage? And shouldn't the pro-choice position leave it to the victim to choose his/her means of defense? As has been pointed out, many (if not most) victims are at a physical disadvantage in a struggle with their attacker(s). Could you explain to me the morality of taking the choice of defensive tool away from the victim?

[Clovis Sangrail]

46. why should I explain the morality of something I never advocated?

I pointed out, and you *agreed*, that use of bodily force does NOT automatically put the defender at a disadvantage.

[jazzhound]

60. Your denial of the obvious fact that criminal predators will

almost invariably choose vulnerable targets leads me to believe that you generally oppose the use of firearms in self-defense. One of the tactics frequently used by those who oppose firearms for defense is to deny the effectiveness or need of a firearm for self-defense. We see these "arguments" constantly in this forum. If I have misunderstood your position, my apologies.

So I take it that you are pro-choice w/regard to type of self-defense tool?

[Clovis Sangrail]

62. you mean *your denial?

I didn't make that denial.
You ascribed that belief to me and then argued against it - so I think it should rightly be called *your denial.
(I think there's a place on the net that will make a copy out of wicker for you)

All I did was challenge what people are putting forth as "obvious fact", what criminals "ALWAYS" do, and other blanket statements.

[jazzhound]

69. Alright........your post #45 makes your position clear.

You are not opposed to folks having the choice to defend themselves with firearms. As I said ---- your statements have the "ring" of others who have argued in a more disingenuous manner. You recall I apologized for the possible misread.

[safeinOhio]

111. Your saying a fake gun

is 90% as effective as a real one? Good point.

[X_Digger]

116. It's effective because the risk is real.

If a lot of people started carrying fake guns, criminals would eventually change their risk assessment. Herd immunity lost. Good going!

[safeinOhio]

138. for that 90% it work for, according to the stats,

the perp will never know. Hell, I'm not telling.

[X_Digger]

144. You think criminals wouldn't find out some percentage are fake?

Bluffing only works on the ability to convincingly lie. Bluff often enough, and you lose credibility. Then you're left with a more pissed off rapist.

Good going!


:sarcasm:

[one-eyed fat man]

128. Fake gun is asking for trouble.

Never bluff! The gun should not come out unless there is sufficient justification to use deadly force in self-defense. The aggressor might suddenly depart upon seeing the victim is not defenseless, but if they hesitate in leaving then you should not hesitate in defending your self.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. Never bluff about guns. Your bluff may get called. N/T

[spin]

198. NEVER EVER take a fake firearm to a gun fight ...

it's an excellent way to end up dead!

[shadowrider]

25. I'm 57 with some health issues

Should I mix it up with 2 18 year olds who can whip my a*s, or worse, or should I pull my weapon to defend myself and watch them shit their pants as they run away?

Which should it be? Hmmmmmmmmm.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Attackers will ALWAYS choose someone they believe they can overpower. N/T

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. and you know this ... how?

absolute statements really make people look silly

how many attackers rely on intimidation rather than force?

[PavePusher]

38. Do criminals make a habit of chosing victims they feel are capable

of succesful self-defense? This would be news to me...

[Clovis Sangrail]

45. don't know.. here's what I do know

Not everybody imposing their will by threat of force has the ability, or even *believes they have the ability, to overpower their opponents.

I know this because I've seen people fold like a house of cards when they were challenged (indicating that there never was more than intimidation in their arsenal)
I also know this because I have used intimidation (successfully and *not in a criminal activity) when I knew there was little chance I could actually overpower the other person.

My point is broad brush platitudes about how criminals act are weak arguments for gun ownership... *not that guns are never warranted.

[PavePusher]

64. I agree with you that such scenarios do happen.

But I feel no obligation to take any risk I do not freely chose. (ETA: And I refuse to put my trust in the assumption that a criminal is bluffing. I'd rather just mail all my money to Vegas, probably better odds that way.)

Nor should anyone be forced, by law, custom or peer pressure, to assume any additional risk against their will. Denial of effective, efficient tools for self-defense is forcing such a restriction.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Would you like for me to reccomend some books on Criminology?

As I have posted many times, I am a retired private investigator.

Tell me this. Can you imagine a skinny 5'4" guy trying, with just his fists, to mug Hulk Hogan? Can you imagine him saying to Hogan, "Give me you wallet or I will beat you up?"

I think there are some people around here, who, if they were told that water was wet would demand a documented study.

[Clovis Sangrail]

49. would these books tell me that criminals ALWAYS choose

victims they can physically overpower?

As I've said ... I've *seen* - and been involved in - situations where intimidation was the main tool being used irrespective of physical abilities.

skinny 5'4" guy intimidating Hulk Hogan ... probably not.
skinny 5'4" "gangster looking" 18 year old against 6' middle age business man that goes to the gym 5 days a week ... completely plausible.

[jazzhound]

97. No, these books would not tell you that criminals ALWAYS

choose victims that they can physically overpower, but they might convince you that your own personal experience is an excruciatingly weak substitute for the experience of a large group of citizens nationwide.

[jazzhound]

44. Because it's the inarguable "Law of the Jungle". NT

[Clovis Sangrail]

51. this is how people lose in conflict situations

they figure that since somebody has *threatened* to hurt them that person must actually *be able* to carry out the threat.

[jazzhound]

73. Certainly there are people who misread and over-react

in conflict situations with their firearms. Statistics show that the behavior of CCW permit holders is extremely good in general. Why do you suppose the number of (shall-issue) concealed-carry states has increased dramatically since 1986? Because state legislatures (and the public at large) are concerned about "how people lose in conflict situations"?

[Clovis Sangrail]

75. how about "because 1 side has a better lobbying aparatus" ? /nt

[jazzhound]

85. Yeah sure..........how 'bout?

As if "a better lobbying apparatus" could prevail if the facts supported gun "control"? Yeah............right! :eyes:

You desperately need to do some research on the issue of gun-rights/gun-"control". May I suggest a book by a lifelong liberal Democrat? The only member of this debate to win the American Society of Criminology's highest award for his thesis on defensive gun use?

"Targeting Guns" by Dr. Gary Kleck. Or "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control". (Kleck/Kates) (Don Kates leans left as well.)

[Clovis Sangrail]

98. forgive me if I'm hetistant

In the short span of this thread you have misunderstood what I said (#36), espoused something that is demonstrably false (#44), and assigned beliefs to me that I never expressed (#60).
I can't say that I'm likely to heed your advice about what I need to learn.

[jazzhound]

101. Handy dodge for a person who clearly is afraid of

confronting his own biases. My congratulations!

[Clovis Sangrail]

103. why thank you!

and might I say:
"handy dodge for somebody who is clearly afraid of confronting his own mistakes .. even when they're clearly enumerated"!

[jazzhound]

127. Re. your enumerations..............

you have misunderstood what I said (#36)

My post #36 had nothing to do with anything you'd said. It was simply a clarification of my original post. (unfortunately worded toward the end)

espoused something that is demonstrably false (#44)

In my post #97 I acknowledge that perps do not always target (perceived) weaker victims. W/regard to post #44 (the "Law of the Jungle" comment) said law states that, for example, a lion will almost always attack the most vulnerable gazelle/zebra/whatever. The exceptions occur when the lion is extremely hungry and forced to take risks going after strong game that it normally would not take. I figured that my "Law of the Jungle" comment would need no further explanation, but clearly I was wrong.

and assigned beliefs to me that I never expressed (#60)

In post #60 I actually offered you a pre-emptive apology if I was reading too much into your posts, and again in #69. Shall I send over a masseuse to rub your shoulders for an hour as well?

My claims regarding the credibility of Gary Kleck on the subject of guns/violence are easily verifiable. Dismiss him and the other liberal criminologists who question the gun control policies of the Democratic Party to your own great disadvantage.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. Why would you hedge otherwise?

[RamboLiberal]

187. You know they have actually done studies with prisoners

on victimology. Who they attack, why they attack, etc.

Sexual predators in particular look for people they can easily overpower. "The rapist is going to go after somebody who's not paying attention, who looks like they're not going to put up a fight, who's in a location that's going to make this more convenient," says Tod Burke, a criminologist at Radford University in Virginia.

"If I had the slightest inkling that a woman wasn't someone I could easily handle, then I would pass right on by. Or if I thought I couldn't control the situation, then I wouldn't even mess with the house, much less attempt a rape there," says Brad Morrison, a convicted sex offender who raped 75 women in 11 states and who's quoted in Predators: Who They Are and How to Stop Them, by Gregory M. Cooper, Michael R. King, and Thomas McHoes.

"Like, if they had a dog, then forget it. Even a small one makes too much noise. If I saw a pair of construction boots, for example, out on the porch or on the landing, I walked right on by. In fact, I think if women who live alone would put a pair of old construction boots—or something that makes it look like a physically fit manly-type of guy lives with them—out in front of their door, most rapists or even burglars wouldn't even think about trying to get into their home."

Distraction is another cue criminals look for. Some people think talking on a cell phone enhances their safety because the other person can always summon help if there's trouble—but experts disagree. Talking on a phone or listening to an iPod is a distraction, and armed robbers are casting about for distracted victims. "Not paying attention, looking like a tourist—having the map out, looking confused—absolutely makes people more vulnerable," Burke says.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200812/marked-mayhem

[AtheistCrusader]

223. Compare armed robberies of liquor stores to gun shops.

Consider the massive disparity in the larger amount of money in a gun shop's till, making it a more attractive target, from a 'size of the take' standpoint.

If gun store robberies make up even 5% of the total number of liquor store robberies, I would be shocked.

[PavePusher]

37. It automatically puts the defender at greater risk of harm.

There is no moral or legal reason why I must increase my risk of so much as a torn finger nail or paper cut when faced with a person who wishes me harm.

[Clovis Sangrail]

53. true ... but not the same as your earlier statement

==
All other methods are destined to rely on bodily force, automatically putting the defender at a disadvantage.
==

[jazzhound]

21. I don't think it's an intelligent or moral thing to do either.

Personally, I don't think putting defenders/victims at a disadvantage is an intelligent or moral thing to do.

One of the most immoral things the "control" lobby has done is to attempt to convince women that while they are equals to men in all other respects, they just can't manage to learn how to operate a firearm.

The hypocrisy sickens.

[jazzhound]

48. Please see post #36 ---- typo on my part toward the

end, even though I had made it clear I was referring to firearm defense in prior sentences.

Not sure what your reference to anti-gun is about.

[Clovis Sangrail]

57. you really don't know what that reference was about ?

What about Rachel Maddow leads you to think she believes:
==
that it's perfectly alright to prevent a woman from defending herself from the rape in the first place
==

[jazzhound]

77. O.K. ---- since you didn't read my post #36, here it is:

The second-to-last sentence in my post should have read:

..........the notion that citizens should be barred from defending themselves in their own homes with firearms is an extreme view.

In her interview with Fallon, Rachel makes it very clear that she believes that firearms should not be allowed in homes. If there are no firearms in homes, a woman cannot defend herself with a firearm in her home. Are we clear now?

[Clovis Sangrail]

90. sorry that I understood your post before you corrected it

you were taking issue with Rachel's stance about guns ... ie: her being "anti-gun"

[jazzhound]

129. With regard to Rachel being "anti-gun"

I found the awkward little pause when Jimmy Fallon asked her whether she was "anti-gun" in the beginning of the discussion on firearms to be interesting.

As I continue to say -- I like Rachel a great deal, but anyone who suggests that citizens should not be allowed to "take guns back home from the shooting range" holds an extreme position based on the general consensus of opinion. And in my opinion, that extreme position makes her anti-gun.

Her bizarre comparison of guns to carnival rides? Well..........let's just say that made me shake my head a few times and leave it at that!

[jazzhound]

131. self-delete -- posted in wrong place NT

[Hoopla Phil]

158. Your right. That is why police never carry handguns. . .oh wait a sec. . .

[dkf]

5. If we truly celebrate the constitution and insist it must be revered, then we must also support the

Right to bear arms. Anything less is hypocrisy.

[PavePusher]

15. Exactly.

If anyone feels strongly enough about it, they are welcome to propose a new Constitutional Amendment, the process for which has been used 17 times with only one revisit needed. Pretty good track record there.

I would, of course, oppose such an Amendment with every tool and method at my disposal...

[Clovis Sangrail]

17. unfortunately it's not nearly that cut and dried

==
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
==

That sounds like it might be in the context of "A well regulated Militia" - but maybe not.
Maybe it really did mean that we have the absolute right to keep and bear arms and we shouldn't interpret it.

I suppose not interpreting it would also mean I can keep shoulder launched stinger missiles.
Or we could be really observant of their words and only consider "Arms" to be what *they knew to be "Arms" ... so nobody can have anything other than muskets and pitchforks.

Apparently my free speech doesn't protect me from yelling fire in a theatre either.
(though it strangely gives me the right to a small secluded spot from which to rant)

The point is that most of this stuff involves a large amount of interpretation and isn't nearly as simple as some people make it out to be.

[dkf]

34. Actually it says to me that we all must be in the militia with our arms at the ready.

Which could be interpreted as all of us needing to help keep law and order. I was listening to a historical perspective on the 2nd amendment where mostly these militias were needed to defend against outlaws and other threats. I don't like guns so I would not support this but I think the interpretation is reasonable. And I don't profess to revere the constitution where what is a right becomes right but many here do.

[PavePusher]

40. The Militia clause is not a limiting condition on the Right...

no matter how hard some people try to Tesseract-Mobius the grammer.

[Clovis Sangrail]

74. didn't say it was /nt

[dkf]

167. My point is it is not limiting because by the constitution we are all part of the militia.

I think it is an interesting concept to think that all citizens are subject to and are officers of the law. That would make it our common obligation to enforce those laws even if the police don't know anything about it. Right now everyone thinks that unless they are caught by law enforcement they are free and clear. Making all residents responsible to enforce the law as members of the militia is very different indeed.

Right now someone tells you how they evade taxes and is doing things illegally and we all just sit on the side not doing anything about it. But if it became part of our duties as members of our militia it would change things.

[Clovis Sangrail]

55. reasonable interpretation I suppose

but like you I don't think I'd favor armed civilian militias "defending against outlaws" or what that might mean.
it still leaves open the question of what constitutes "Arms" though.

[PavePusher]

66. What are the police forces...

but a permenant, armed, civilian militia?

[Clovis Sangrail]

79. LEO != civilian

wouldn't they fall under the executive branch of their respective state governments ?

[PavePusher]

110. LEO's are under local municipal governments...

(unless they are State Police) and are very much civilians. Militia is, by definition, made up of civilians.

[Clovis Sangrail]

123. if they are under local government wouldn't they be

civilian in the same way that politicians or other civil servants are civilians?

If the Attorney General of the US (part of the executive) is the chief law enforcement official and the entire DOJ is essentially enforcing the (federal) law as the AG sees fit - aren't all of those officers essentially a part of the executive branch of the government?

Wouldn't this be the same at the state level (ie: all of the state law enforcement officers are reporting to that states AG etc. etc. ) ?

[X_Digger]

125. There's a long running debate over 'civilian'..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.

Google's first definition for civilian is 'a nonmilitary citizen', Random House lists it as 'a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization', Collins English Dictionary- 'a person whose primary occupation is civil or nonmilitary'.

My 1958 Websters lists it as 'any person not in military or naval service'.

Usage changes, but I will always protest the 'militarization' of the police. If they want to be military, let them be bound by the UCMJ. When cops have no expectation of privacy, and their persons can be searched without reasonable suspicion, then they'll be able to call the rest of us 'civilian'.

[Euromutt]

169. To be precise: LEO does not equal private citizen

By which I mean "private citizen" as opposed to "government official" or "agent of the state." But only military personnel are not civilians. Police most assuredly are.

[Hoopla Phil]

159. We all ARE in the militia. Denial is not just a river in . . . oh the heck with it.

[X_Digger]

43. Why do these old memes keep popping up?

Or we could be really observant of their words and only consider "Arms" to be what *they knew to be "Arms" ... so nobody can have anything other than muskets and pitchforks.

Should the first amendment only apply to hand crank or water wheel printing presses? Not computers?

Apparently my free speech doesn't protect me from yelling fire in a theatre either.
(though it strangely gives me the right to a small secluded spot from which to rant)

Likewise, the second amendment doesn't protect you from committing murder with a firearm.

I suppose not interpreting it would also mean I can keep shoulder launched stinger missiles.

You already can- just more paperwork. Why not drag out the nuke hyperbole, too, then you'll have a hat trick.

[Clovis Sangrail]

59. you miss the point

I'm not saying we should interpret the constitution literally - the opposite actually.
I'm pointing out the illogic of demanding strict adherence to the letter of the constitution, with no interpretation, in one situation and unflinching acceptance that interpretation is fine in other parts.

... it's like watching people thump on the bible and then seeing them pick and choose the bits we should and shouldn't pay attention to

[X_Digger]

65. You can expand, but not contract.

The line can be moved to more protections, but not less. It's a line in the sand that the government cannot cross*.

A strict interpretation of the second amendment doesn't provide protection for murder, or nukes, or any other hyperbolic codswallop.

I expect many of the existing restrictions to be re-evaluated in that light and removed.


*As a fundamental right (post McDonald) infringements must be judged according to a level of appropriate scrutiny.

[Clovis Sangrail]

71. how would murder be in the same codswallop as nukes?

murder isn't a right guaranteed by *any amendment - where as the 2nd *does* guarantee the right to bear arms.
The only thing that keeps nukes out of the list of "Arms" we are allowed to own is *interpretation* of what the founders meant.

that's an entirely different batch of codswallop

[X_Digger]

78. "protection of murder" not murder itself..

.. there's no sane interpretation of the second amendment that protects murder, just as there's no sane interpretation of the first amendment that protects incitement to riot.

The definition of "arms" encompasses weapons that can be carried for defense. When we have star trek style phasers or hand-held lasers capable of stopping an attacker, they'll fall into that category. Nukes, hand grenades, or pipe bombs, aren't defensive in nature- at least not in defense of self; defense of nation, defense of unit or platoon is possible, but not germane to the individual right under discussion.

[Clovis Sangrail]

88. we're back at interpretation

"Arms" is a shortening of "armaments" or "arma".
Armaments include any sort of weaponry designed to give you an advantage over an adversary - regardless of being defensive or offensive.

That the courts have decided that possession of nuclear weapons isn't protected by the 2nd amendment is an interpretation of what the 2nd actually means.

re: no "protection of murder"
I have also found there is no sane interpretation of the 2nd amendment that protects my right to kayak naked.

[X_Digger]

96. The courts have made no such judgement.

Please, cite it, I'll wait.

re 'arma'- Timothy Cunningham's 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

That is the legal definition most often cited in cases bearing relevance to the second amendment. Kind of hard to take a nuke in my hands, and/or throw it at another. "Interpretation" needs go no further back than is necessary to determine the original intent- "the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." - United States v. Sprague

You are the one who said, "Apparently my free speech doesn't protect me from yelling fire in a theatre either.
(though it strangely gives me the right to a small secluded spot from which to rant)". As though someone were claiming that they should have protection for all uses of firearms, even those presumptively illegal.

[Clovis Sangrail]

100. so according to you nukes *ARE* ok to own?

I freely admit I have *absolutely _NO_* case to cite regarding the illegality of owning a nuke.

... but ...
according to your latest definition (that of an "arm" being something that a man wears or takes in his hands)

if this is indeed the rule then nukes (or any other weapon) are OK provided we make them small enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

is that right?

[X_Digger]

106. Missed the individual bit, apparently..

It's the 'his hands', 'his defense', 'at another' that separates grenades (and nukes) from handguns or swords.

I can own grenades, or RPGs, tanks, or howitzers.. but they're not in the scope of the protections outlined by the second amendment (hence the additional regulation). As 'indiscriminate' weapons, they're not particularly suitable for self-defense.

[Clovis Sangrail]

112. I did ... and still am missing it

please point out where it is.

This has actually got me curious about this.
do you have a cite for what the supreme court currently interprets as falling under "arms" ?

I'm wondering.. if a suitcase nuke is covered (sorry, still unaware of any actual precedent which tells me what/why is covered)
what would be the status of gathering nuclear material for making of your own suitcase nuke?
it *is legal to make your own weapons .. so would gathering of nuclear material then be protected as a second amendment right?

[X_Digger]

121. The most recent case to cover it is McDonald, citing Heller..

.. Heller goes into more detail, citing Cruikshank, Presser, Miller (both of em).. The Heller decision is a treasure trove, just keep looking up the citations in the footnotes.

Re constructing a bomb (nuclear or otherwise).. that falls into 'destructive device' territory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

There are two broad classes of destructive devices:

* Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

* Any non-sporting firearm with a bore over 0.50", such as a 40mm grenade launcher often used in conjunction with military rifles. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a legitimate sporting use.)

[Hoopla Phil]

195. Very correct on Heller being a "treasure trove" of information. Anyone that is serious

in wanting to understand what the 2A is all about would do well to start there. The citations used in Heller are a great recourse list.

[stray cat]

8. What are the required qualifications to have an opinion about extremism

and how do you meet those qualifications for the purpose of posting?

[jazzhound]

16. No qualifications required.

However, if you are a public figure going after others for extreme views, it's helpful to have a clean front porch.

[tabatha]

12. Not that I think that this would in any way apply to the US

but Australia banned guns because of the extreme violence and numbers of murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

[friendly_iconoclast]

163. Doesn't seem to be working all that well in Australia, either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x337052

If you look at the first story linked, some crooks are getting some of their firepower from the government

[yurbud]

19. sigh--how many guns in the home are used effectively to deter intruders and how many to

kill friends & relatives, accidentally or intentionally?

Some stats:

• A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
  A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
  
  Journal of Trauma, 1998
  
  
• In the U.S, children under 15 commit suicide with guns at a rate of eleven times the rate of other countries combined.
  For children under the age of 15, the rate of suicide in the United States is twice the rate of other counties. For suicides involving firearms, the rate was almost eleven times the rate of other countries combined.
  
  U.S. Department of Justice, March 2000
  
• Guns in the home are the primary source for firearms that teenagers use to kill themselves in the United States.
  Studies show that guns in the home are the primary source for firearms that teenagers use to kill themselves.
  
  Injury Prevention, 1999

http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/facts.asp

[PavePusher]

30. Your first stat is mendaciously misleading...

as it does not take into account how many times a firearm is used in defense where the criminal is not shot. It totally ignores the incidents where the criminal flees or surrenders without being hit or requiring the discharge of the firearm.


Item 2 and 3 are non-sequiteurs. It's the same as saying that pills in the home were the primary method of suicide by pills. Duh. I'm sure that for those that hung themselves, rope in the home was a primary source. Duh.

[yurbud]

145. what if you added in all the times some drunk brandished a gun at his wife, kids played with it

or someone put a gun to their head and chickened out of killing themselves.

Wouldn't the proportion of unreported incidents of those be similar to unreported scaring off burglars?

Even if less of those were still unreported, it would be a steep climb for unreported self-defense cases to catch up with handgun shooting accidents and domestic disputes WITHOUT the unreported.

[X_Digger]

150. Actually, ignoring the 'unreported' on both sides- because there is no way to measure _either_..

The Department of Justice's 1994 survey, 'Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms' showed about 1.5M defensive gun uses.

So even sticking with the reported defensive gun uses and reported crimes, DGU's outnumber crimes.

[jazzhound]

165. And keep in mind that the 1.5 million annual defensive

gun use figure is potentially conservative, as Gary Kleck's National Self Defense Survey came up with a figure of 2.5 million DGU's annually. The American Society of Criminology considered Kleck's methodology strong enough to warrant their highest award --- the Michael Hindelang Award.

[DongHa69]

166. Oh come on now

your introducing facts to his fiction, not fair.:rofl:

[jazzhound]

168. One of the best (most comprehensive) articles that I've

encountered regarding defensive gun use is Kleck's sound rebuttal to critics of the National Self Defense Survey. A long read, certainly, but a necessary one for those who want to gain real insight into the players in this debate and how they have operated. Here's "Degrading Scientific Standards to get the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down":

http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/11/kleck1999.pdf

[Hoopla Phil]

191. Thanks for the link to that article. Good reading material for after dinner tonight.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. LEGALLY owned guns are rarely misused.

The various studies always conflate legal with illegal possession of guns. On those rare occasion when criminals are not included in the data sample, the injury rate drops to very low levels. Both Texas and Florida publish the statistics for their concealed carry population, every year. They are ultra-safe and law-abiding in their use of guns.

[X_Digger]

68. Oh look, Kellerman _again_

Citing Kellerman is like citing the bible in a scientific debate.

[jazzhound]

80. Kellermann indeed, and his brilliant 1986 "study"

In the cost/benefit analysis of keeping a weapon in the house he believes that the "benefit" of defensive gun use is measured in criminals killed rather than occupants protected. Real rocket scientist, this one! :eyes:

[Euromutt]

207. Actually, that one's from his 1998 "study"

The one in which he failed to factor into the abstract and conclusion that in assaultive shootings, the firearm used was known to have been one kept in the household in question in 14.2% of cases studied.

[jazzhound]

211. Yes, thanks EM

Posting under the influence of fatigue........my poorly stated post was intended to convey that after his earlier debacle no study of his has any credibility.

[Euromutt]

213. Personally, I think the 1993 study was his nadir, along with the NEJM's

The 1993 study (3 times as likely) was the one where Kellermann, after the deserved savaging his 1986 study had received, sought to insulate himself from further criticism by refusing to publish his research data. While that was remarkable in and of itself, what is even more remarkable is that the New England Journal of Medicine accepted the paper, and that the peer reviewers gave it the nod, despite being unable to verify that the paper's conclusions were supported by the data, on account of Kellermann refusing to share the data.

Various medical blogs are bitching about the NEJM recently publishing a craptastic paper claiming acupuncture works, but to be honest, the NEJM lost all credibility in my book the moment I read about how Kellermann's 1993 paper was accepted, a fact only explicable by the editorial staff and the peer reviewers being heavily biased against private ownership of firearms.

[jazzhound]

216. Yes --- indeed the '93 "study" damns both Kellermann

and the NEJM. In "Targeting Guns" Gary Kleck details a number of false citations by gun "control" "scientists" and the fact that the utter failure of peer review allowed publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association to publish the "work" of these propagandists sans any critical evaluation. Kleck speaks of the political objective of the collusion between the pro-"control" "scientists" and the health advocacy community in the conclusion of his article* rebutting those who attack studies finding high numbers of defensive gun uses:

* Degrading Scientific Standards to get the Defensive Gun use Estimate Down

Conclusions––The Political Functions of the DGU Critiques

Hemenway and like-minded critics have failed to cast even mild doubt on the accuracy of the NSDS estimates and other high estimates of DGU frequency. Leaving aside problems with the DGU surveys already noted in the Kleck-Gertz article, the critics’ claims have been effectively rebutted. The conclusion that there are large numbers of defensive uses of guns each year in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research area.

Given the political purposes of the critics, however, it is inconsequential that all of their claims have been rebutted. Although it is easy enough to rebut each of Hemenway’s claims, the political functions of a piece like this one were served the instant it was published. Even if a “critique” is completely devoid of serious intellectual content, and each of its points are thoroughly refuted in the pages of the publishing journal, once the piece appears in print in a respectable journal, propagandists can cite the publication, either in propaganda tracts or in interviews with reporters, as evidence that “surveys indicating large DGUs have been discredited.”

Indeed, this is precisely how the Hemenway piece has already been cited, before it was even published. In a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association, three public health gun control advocates stated that “the reasons that this survey is incapable of yielding an accurate estimate of defensive gun use are described at length in the Hemenway article” (Vernick, Teret, and Webster 1997, p. 703). Apparently a series of unsupported and one-sided speculations was a sound enough basis for these individuals to reject the findings of at least 15 large-scale, professionally conducted surveys.

We can be confident that ideologues and fanatics will in future cite these one-sided speculations as authoritative proof that large DGU estimates have been “discredited,” while pro-control academics who fancy themselves moderates will conclude that while Hemenway and others like him may have been wrong on some points, they had nevertheless somehow “cast doubt” on the estimates or “raised serious questions” about them.

The critiques can be cited by gun control advocates, pro-control scholars, and reporters alike in good conscience, as part of a “balanced” presentation of the issue. Hemenway’s outrageous and unsupported speculations will be cited in scholarly sources alongside the NSDS estimates, implicitly giving equal weight to careful empirically based estimates and the one-sided speculations of a pro-control extremist. The fact that the balance is completely spurious, and that only one side of the debate can present credible supportive empirical evidence, is politically irrelevant. Since it is highly unlikely that either reporters or the rest of the audience for propaganda will bother to read a rebuttal, the complete lack of any intellectual merit to the DGU critiques will not be evident, and thus will not in any way reduce its political utility.4

Thus, critiques of the DGU surveys effectively serve a political, propagandistic function regardless of how one-sided, illogical, intellectually hollow and devoid of empirical support they may be. The critiques can be cited by those who are unwilling to accept the verdict of empirical evidence, providing a fig leaf of respectability to what is basically a political position, that DGUs cannot, and must not, be frequent. Left unmentioned will be one simple fact. In all of the critiques, critics did not once cite the only thing that really could legitimately cast doubt on the large DGU estimates: better empirical evidence.

[yurbud]

147. only ONE source has those stats? You couldn't reproduce them looking at DOJ stats yourself?

[X_Digger]

151. Actually, no, you can't (for the first)..

I recognized the journal / date on the first stat..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=334436

The second may very well be true, and the third is a tautology. When you reverse it, you can see how silly it is- "when teens choose to shoot themselves, guns in the home are more frequently used." As if a person who chooses to shoot him/herself would go find a random gun rather than use one close at hand.

[Hoopla Phil]

196. What a great analogy. Both are totally made up and based only on faith.

[sharesunited]

22. And being shot in anger by ex-husbands and boyfriends is a worthwhile price?

Access to guns and ammo is a menace.

[shadowrider]

27. So if no gun is available they use a knife.

Tell me, are they MORE dead if a gun is used?

[sharesunited]

52. Knives require effort. A gun is convenient and very very efficient.

[shadowrider]

54. So it's ok for a bad guy (or victim) to kill using a knife because it requires effort??????

ROFL. Again, you make me chuckle.

[sharesunited]

58. A bad guy is less lethal with a knife, and presents the victim with a better chance of escape.

You can't outrun a bullet.

[shadowrider]

61. -- SNORT --

Darn it, you did it again.

[shadowrider]

63. By the way,

A nervous bad guy, holding a gun sideways, from 15 feet, is LESS lethal, unless he gets extremely lucky, than a bad guy up close and personal with a knife.

[PavePusher]

67. Most of us are not track stars...

and many can not outrun a knife.

Criminals who favor knives, in fact, try to pick victims who can't outrun a knife.

Duh.

[shadowrider]

72. I think this one is a lost cause n/t

[jazzhound]

134. When I was in my early twenties I managed to outrun a

group of three young thugs in my steel-toe boots. (Lived in a pretty rough neighborhood and walking home from a car break-down)

Even though I can still run pretty damn fast, I really would not want to repeat that experience today. Don't know if they had a knife or not, but I clearly saw a section of chain and a pipe.

To add insult to injury, after laying low for awhile I chose an unusual route back home...........only to get pelted by empty beer bottles from a passing car and told that "my cracker-*ss needed to get the F out of their neighborhood".

[rrneck]

105. Most people can't outrun the bad guy either. Duh. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

136. I can't run. A fast walk is all I can manage. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

225. Priceless.

You don't have to aim with a knife. You just make physical contact with your target, with your hand. Easy peasy.

[rrneck]

104. You don't understand,

It's really simple. We simply regulate all dangerous items based on caloric output. See? It's easy once you float your ideology on top of a disembodied cloud of preconceived notions.

[jazzhound]

137. Mind if I use this?

It's easy once you float your ideology on top of a disembodied cloud of preconceived notions.

I promise to pay you residuals..........

[rrneck]

143. Thanks! Be my guest.

Don't send me a check till after the first ten grand or so.

[DongHa69]

76. Exactly

So why should I rely on a knife for self defense, when, in your own words, a gun is convenient and very very efficient?

[DongHa69]

86. Whoops

I think I got him on that one.

[sharesunited]

107. Its lethality makes it unsuitable for access by the general public.

Too much injustice results from the unilateral decision to pull a trigger.

[DongHa69]

114. Thats not what you said

you said that a gun is convenient and very very efficient, am I right? And if it is convenient and very very efficient, why should I not have the right as a lawful citizen to use the most convenient and efficient tool available?
Just because you don't like guns doesn't give you the right to say what I can and cannot have.

[sharesunited]

117. You are lawful right up until the moment you aren't.

And having the power to conveniently and efficiently inflict death is bound to warp your judgment about dealing with life's problems.

[DongHa69]

120. going by that

you are alive up until the time you are dead. I've been legally carrying concealed for many many years and it hasn't warped my judgement yet. Can you supply stats or links to studies where legally carrying or legally owning a gun warps you judgement?
Having that power to inflict death, as you put it, makes me that much more careful of the situations I might encounter.

[sharesunited]

122. Great! Good for you!

But your access to guns and ammo is the same access which this guy had:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9040463

[DongHa69]

124. I will ask once again

can you supply me with studies or links that show gun ownership warps your judgement, and how do you know that he was legal to own a gun?

[sharesunited]

139. As far as warping judgment

some things speak for themselves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9041343

As far as "legal to own," that is a futile distinction to try to make. Scarcity is the solution. When we adopt scarcity as a public policy objective, only then will be addressing the problem. Make guns and ammo scarce.

[PavePusher]

142. You can start with making crime scarce.

Right after you cease again extrapolating from one to infinity.

[rrneck]

149. Make crime scarce first. Duh. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

193. How about we outlaw crime. Criminals obey the law right?

[PavePusher]

141. Your mistake, of course...

is in extrapolating from one individual to cover all gun owners.

And that, as you well know, is utter nonsense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. That sounds perilously close to Robert Bork's theory of 'moral harm'

"Knowledge that an activity is taking place is harmful to those who find it profoundly immoral".

I suppose it's out of the question to only interfere with those carrying guns if they commit some demonstrable harmful act with it?

[Hoopla Phil]

192. And that is the kind of reasoning that brought about "no prior restraint". But

thank you for trying to do it again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Plenty of potentially lethal things are accessable to the public.

Is a murderous stabbing less of an injustice than a fatal shooting?

[Callisto32]

171. Yeah, only the supermen in government should have that access....

[oneshooter]

102. If they are close enough to use a knife. They will not miss. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

183. Wrapping the fingers on ones right hand around the left side if her throat

And those of the left about the opposite side and then squeezing as hard as possible is not only intuitive , it is very inexpensive, and in some cases quite cathartic .

[Euromutt]

214. Hey, it worked for Gary "the Green River Killer" Ridgway

Probably the most prolific serial killer in American history, and he murdered all his victims by strangulation.

It worked for Othello, too, but ultimately it proved to not be cathartic.

[tourivers83]

87. Fear is the new why.

The genie is long out of that bottle. No one will ever put it back. People in America will never volunteer to surrender firearms and any alternative other then surrender is just unthinkable.

[proteus_lives]

156. Say what you really mean.

"Access to rights is a menace."

You're not fooling anyone.

[SteveM]

177. Moses has spoken. Amen. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

200. Didn't work that way in this incident.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333711

Why would you have the week, elderly, or infirm be at the mercy of the strong?

[yurbud]

23. consider pepper spray instead: you can't use to commit suicide, kill your spouse, and your kids

can't use it to accidentally kill their buddies.

If you squirt your attacker, they'll be confused long enough for you to escape and call the cops.


If you accidentally squirt a friend or relative, they'll be pissed off but alive.

[PavePusher]

31. It's not nearly as effective as you think it is. Ask any LEO. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

33. And if the attacker is upwind of me?

I don't like the idea of trying to spray someone and have it blow back in my own face.

BTW - I do carry pepper spray, but I also carry a gun.

[yurbud]

146. you can't tell which way the wind is blowing?

[X_Digger]

152. "Pardon me, Mr. Attacker, could you stand over there?" Riiiiiiiight. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

179. So if the attacker is coming at me from upwind I am supposed to ber a harmless victim?

Don't you see that you are proposing a partial solution?

[X_Digger]

70. Never used it have you?

And more importantly, never had it used against you (I have, during a self-defense course.)

[yurbud]

148. Enlighten us on the effects! When I was doing oil spill clean up in Alaska, that's what they

gave us to ward off Kodiak bears. In that instance, I was a little incredulous too.

[X_Digger]

153. Hurts like a sumbitch, but you can fight through it.

We were smacked in the face with it, then had to move to the firing line and shoot. I had to use one hand to hold my eye open, but I had no problem hitting the target. I thought my nose would never stop running. (Took about an hour.)

It very well may work on a bear whose mucous membranes are more sensitive, but a person can choose to ignore the pain.

[yurbud]

164. I just watched a video of marines doing that.

I wonder if an untrained street thug would have the presence of mind to do what you did or continue to pursue whatever his criminal agenda was after being sprayed.

At the very least, the person who sprayed them might have a couple of seconds of confusion to escape in.

[Euromutt]

170. There's a less formal training program; it's called "being subdued during arrest"

In addition, OC is used fairly extensively in subduing inmates of penal facilities, so if your assailant has a history of past arrests, and possibly also convictions--which is likely given that most violent criminals have prior histories of criminal behavior--there is a very good chance that he's been exposed to OC before, and probably more than once. And while there's no way to resist the physical effects of OC, it is possible to fight your way through if you're able to mentally prepare yourself. My brother-in-law took a course in which he was sprayed with OC, and despite its effects and not wearing his glasses, he was able to force one eye open with the fingers of his off hand and put two rounds into a man-sized target with the handgun in his other. That was his first exposure, by the way.

Certainly, OC is damnably effective against canines and bears, but it's important to remember that both have significantly more sensitive noses than we do, and therefore more exposed mucous membranes. Human aren't nearly as vulnerable to the stuff.

[yurbud]

174. two things are different from both the prison and military training

1. For self-defense use, you should squirt then flee. It's one thing for the squirted person to steal up their nerves to open their eyes to DEFEND THEMSELVES (from a guard or attacking enemy) and something else to do so for any other reason.

2. In those trainings, when you force your eye open, does anyone ever give you a second squirt? Even if someone is able to fight through the effects, another shot would at least force them to close their eyes for a second or so reflexively so you could escape.

While pepper spray has its limitations, the benefit of not killing someone you like accidentally outweighs it for me.

[SteveM]

178. I have pepper spray, I have fairly good locks...

and I am pretty good about being "situationally aware." But at 62, and sleeping at night, if someone bursts through my outside doors, and then penetrates my bedroom door(s), I will use no pepper spray, esp. on thugs who have in all likelihood been subject to the stuff at least once in their careers.

I will use a .357 magnum caliber revolver.

[shadowrider]

180. I'm the same

and at 57, I'd introduce them to my .40 S&W one bullet at a time, in rapid succession.

[yurbud]

189. this gets to a key question: how do you store a handgun safely AND have it ready for self-defense?

the two seem mutually exclusive: if you've got it where the kids can't get at it, you won't be able to whip it out when someone burst through your door.

[Hoopla Phil]

199. I use one of these at home for our self defense gun.

Mine is a little different but the concept is the same. mine has small holes in the bottom to secure it to a nightstand. I actually secured it to one of the base boards of my bed.

The other guns are in a bigger safe.

[yurbud]

210. I'm glad to see it!

[Euromutt]

201. Quick-access lock box by night; on your person by day

In addition to the GunVault line mentioned by Phil above, there are plenty of models by other manufacturers that use a Simplex five-push-button combination lock. You can set the combination yourself, and the combination can involve multiple buttons being pressed at once. With a modicum of practice you can have it open and the firearm in your hand within five seconds.

[SteveM]

226. Self-defense experts have a number of suggestions...

I am less high-tech. I store a loaded .357 mag in a fire-proof lock box which is secreted away when I am not home. When I am at home, I expose the box and open it so the weapon is immediately at-hand. When I have visitors, I use the same security procedures for when I am not at home. All other arms are store (sans ammo) in a locked safe. All other ammo is stored in a separate locked box. I have only to reach down and pick the revolver up; no need to "whip out" anything.

[GreenStormCloud]

181. No one whom I like will be trying to mug me in a parking lot.

Using pepper spray in a confined room ensures that the user will also feel the effects of it.

While escape is always a good idea, some of us can't run.

[yurbud]

188. you could also feel the effects of your handgun in a confined space

if someone gets your purse before you do

[GreenStormCloud]

215. My guns are carried in my pocket and in my waist.

My wife carries hers in her pocket. The Kel-Tec P3AT is completely concealed and doesn't print at all.

A purse is a poor place to carry a gun. All gun training courses advise against it in favor of other methods and places. Basically, the gun should be on your person.

[yurbud]

217. no one you like would try to mug you, but they accidentally sneak up on you and

startle in a situation where you expect to be mugged so you get trigger happy.

[Euromutt]

219. Conjecture passed off as fact.

Your idea of gun owners seems to be based on caricatures, not on real life. As Christopher Hitchens put it, that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. So I can simply say "it doesn't happen that way."

[jazzhound]

220. Euromutt, you are missing an important fact.

The evil gun transmits it's evil to the gun owner ---- making the evil owner a trigger happy loon.

I'm surprised -- and I must say somewhat disappointed -- that you can't comprehend this.

(playing it safe.............:sarcasm:)

[GreenStormCloud]

221. Not likely at all.

If I am in a dangerous area, I am watching all around me. Sneaking up on me and startling me isn't going to happen.

There is much more to carrying a gun than just dropping it in your pocket. All of us who are RKBA advocates insist that the armed person should get training in tactics and in situational awareness.

I can reccomend some excellent books on the subject, as can most of the rest of the regular posters.

[Euromutt]

206. You're making an awful lot of assumptions

And they're mutually exclusive. If you're supposed to "squirt then flee," you're not going to be in a position to place "a second squirt" accurately, are you? To do that, you'd have to hang around within spray range and observe the would-be assailant's reaction, which is exactly what you're not supposed to be doing.

You're also assuming that the assailant has to force an eye open. That's not necessarily going to be the case. A knife-wielder might simply charge the last-known position of the OC wielder, and sink the blade upon making contact, which is precisely why you don't want to remain standing in the same spot.

And frankly, if you don't think you're competent enough to handle a firearm safely, then no, a firearm is indeed not for you, and it's laudable not to have one. But do not for a second assume that that applies to everybody else.

[Hoopla Phil]

160. And why is it that cops haven't abandoned their sidearms for just pepper spray?

[jazzhound]

36. To correct a MAJOR typo in original post:

The second-to-last sentence in my post should have read:

..........the notion that citizens should be barred from defending themselves in their own homes with firearms is an extreme view.

[rrneck]

108. The calls for "pizza" are interesting.

Why would anyone assume you might get banned for disagreeing with Rachel Maddow? It's disconcerting to see people trying to enforce an orthodoxy based on the opinion of a television personality.

[jazzhound]

133. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Sort of runs parallel to the authoritarian streak we see in so many gun "control" supporters who post in this forum.

[friendly_iconoclast]

208. I call it the zampolit impulse.

They are bound and determined to try and enforce their version of progressive thought, and those who have the temerity

to even suggest that they aren't quoting Holy Scripture will get an (usually quite vituperative) earful.

[jazzhound]

212. Yup.

I call it the zampolit impulse.

I like it. It's the signature of the faux-progressives.

[-..__...]

161. Marching orders.

Who the fuck is "Rachel" anyways? :shrug:

And why would her opinion mean anything to anyone, or have any importance to anyone but herself? :shrug:

Ohhh... she's a sacred cow here... not to be criticized or disagreed with the DU fawners and bootlickers.

Just another mainstream media blowhard.

[Euromutt]

172. Beats me; I don't watch television news

I saw Rachel Maddow once, last year, when my father-in-law was laid up in a nursing home after a triple bypass. This was when the day the term "teabagger" started being used to refer to... well, the Teabaggers, and the main impression I got of Rachel Maddow was that she was trying rather hard to be Jon Stewart.

[jazzhound]

132. The political cost of public statements such as these.......

Probably should have stated in the OP that the reason comments such as Rachel's are distressing to me and others is that they attach automatically to the Democratic Party. These remarks get used by the Republicans and the NRA as delicious, dripping red meat to remind gun owners that there really are influential people who would like to see firearm-free homes. As has been mentioned countless times..............don't like the NRA? Stop sending them ammo!!! Don't like losing close elections to the GOP? Stop empowering them through support of worthless, self-sabotaging gun "control" like the "assault weapon" ban and felony-moronic legislation like we're seeing in California!!

[slackmaster]

173. Even the most brilliant and insightful people have blind spots

:hi:

[jazzhound]

204. Very true. That being said, whenever I notice that a

person has formed what by all appearances is an unstudied opinion, I look at all of their statements with greater scrutiny..........as most people would.

Democrats suffer a double dose of damage from support of flawed gun "control". Firstly, a narrowly focused hit to their credibility, and secondly a more broadly focused shot. People ask themselves "If Democrats have mislead us on the issues of "assault weapons", "cop-killer bullets", and "plastic guns" ---- what else are they lying to us about?"

[SteveM]

182. I wonder what her partner thinks about Rachel's position...

Perhaps Ms. Maddow is amenable to changing her mind. She and her writers are bound to run into a wealth of information about the RKBA if they pursue the issue. The question is whether or not she WILL pursue this issue, or let it slide to the "back burner" of consciousness where she will have to confront it again with little or no improvement in her outlook. She must realize that she is advocating criminal laws to prohibit tens of millions of citizens from having guns at home for self-defense, a position that is wholly outside of "mainstream" thought and practice. THIS is what sinks liberal/progressive candidates -- and Ms. Maddow keeps that flame burning under the issue, back burner or no.

[jazzhound]

202. I think that she said her partner's sister is a member of

the NRA, so who knows? Maybe at some point Rachel will take a harder look at this important issue.

THIS is what sinks liberal/progressive candidates -- and Ms. Maddow keeps that flame burning under the issue, back burner or no.

Exactly right. As an influential progressive, Ms. Maddow essentially validates the nonsense we witness in this forum on a daily basis -- prolonging the life of these weak and damaging ideas while giving the GOP ammunition to inflict damage upon the Democratic Party. If I had five dollars for every time a segment on MSNBC illustrated the hypocrisy with which some progressives deal with the gun rights/gun "control" issue I would have quite a sack of loot! Tonight, for example, a segment on Rachel's show underlined how the irrational hate of all things Islam in the U.S. is serving the propaganda agenda of the Taliban and increasing the potential of radicalizing Muslims here at home. Well............HELLO!!! Same principle applies to gun/gun owner hate in terms of damage to the Democratic Party. I really should have spent some time on this point in the OP, but we've said it so many times...............

[RamboLiberal]

186. I figure most of the liberal talkers I watch/listen to will be anti-gun

I've actually had some interesting discussions via email & phone with a local liberal female host who is anti-gun and goes off in a rant often.

I've pointed out why I as a female choose to carry and I've also pointed out in PA she's been around people CCW'ing a gun often without being aware of it.

I respect her position, she respects mine.

I would expect most of the liberals on MSNBC and in talk radio with a few exceptions to be anti-gun.

Another problem at least in TV is most of the hosts live in very anti-gun places. NYC, DC, Massachusetts for Rachel. And they also have the money to live in very secure buildings and to have security if they desire.

That being said I bet Rachel, KO and others have more guts than Beck and his ilk. We saw the hovering security & the bulletproof vest on Beck this weekend. I would bet that Rachel, KO and others get threats from the whackjobs yet I bet they move about with less fear that that wimp Beck who seems to be obsessing with some threat against him. Actually I bet most of the threat is in his head.

I do wish though that liberals would go to a gun class and get an education on why people carry, even some of us liberals.

[jazzhound]

205. Have to say that I agree with everything you've noted,

but this caught my attention:

I respect her position, she respects mine.

It has been my experience that without fail, all those I have spoken with who are strongly anti-gun have no knowledge, or extremely weak knowledge in the guns/violence arena. They won't be able to tell you, for example, what's been going on with the national crime rate over the last twenty years. The difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon. What "shall issue" means w/regard to concealed carry. Who the main players in the debate are. Etc., etc., etc. The most basic knowledge that you would need to engage in discussion. For that reason, while I respect their right to their (uneducated) opinion ---- I cannot respect their position, because it is founded on the arrogant belief the guns/violence issue requires no study.

A couple of years ago I banged out a brief "Gun Control Knowledge Quiz" and put multiple copies in a binder which I keep in the trunk of my car. If/when I get into a debate with a person on the subject, I ask them if they would be willing to take a gun control knowledge quiz. That has abruptly ended the conversation on one occasion, and made for a productive dialog on the other. (which is to say, hearts & minds won!)

[jazzhound]

218. Update: On the RM show tonight in a segment dealing with

Sharon Angle, Rachel pointed out (again) that Angle opposed abortion even in cases where the woman's pregnancy was caused by rape, and that Sharon Angle favors prohibition of alcohol.

So in Rachel's world, total prohibition of alcohol ---- an extreme position. Total prohibition of citizen-owned firearms ---- perfectly alright.

[jazzhound]

227. The pot was calling the kettle black again tonight.

Tonight on the RM show, Rachel was going after Sharon Angle for her repeated references to "2nd Amendment remedies." I would have used the phrase "rightly going after Sharon Angle"............but since Rachel is of the opinion that citizens shouldn't be allowed firearms in their homes, I cannot.

Meanwhile.......again tonight........Tweety was so spun w/regard to dem eebil gunz he missed a slow pitch right over the center of the plate. He was interviewing one of the assclowns from the Florida church planning the Koran burning on Sept. 11th. In response to Chris' question involving the assertion that the event will jeapordize American troops, the person responded by pointing out that American troops deal with extreme elements of Islam on a daily basis. Had Tweety been actually listening he would have immediately pointed out the senselessness of scapegoating all Muslims for the extremism of the minority. Instead, he asked his interview subject if he was armed, and continued on this trivial theme throughout the discussion. The stupid..........it is PAINFUL.

[jazzhound]

228. Recently Rachel featured an interview with Megan McCain,

ostensibly to congratulate her on taking a (moderate) stand against GOP extremism. If Ms. Maddow wanted to pay something more that lip service in support of a person she obviously admires she would be well advised to take a page from Megan's playbook and examine her own extreme views on gun "control".

[jazzhound]

229. Did anyone else catch the Ana Marie Cox segment on

the RM show tonight?

They were calling out Christine O'Donnell for her recent ignorant gaffe re. the 1st Amendment, and Cox stated that while the language of the 1A was unambiguous, there remains "legitimate debate" w/regard to what the Founding Fathers intended with the language of the 2A. Presumable Rachel agreed, since she didn't object.

Judging by comments on a LBN thread, Rachel's performance in calling out R's for extremism last night represented for many a tour de force performance. While I applauded her usual brilliance in both the construction and execution of this segment, I was saddened by the fact that it was tainted by her own extremism on the issue of private ownership of firearms. On the program that motivated me to post this topic, Rachel pointed out that a particular Republican (can't remember which) would likely become quite uncomfortable if the public at large were to become aware of a particular extreme position he held. I have to wonder how comfortable Rachel would be to state openly -- in prime time -- that she doesn't believe that U.S. citizens should have the right to defend themselves with firearms in their own homes. I doubt that very many folks heard her state this position with Jimmy Fallon during his late-night program, and as such her extreme position on gun "control" is essentially hidden.

[shadowrider]

231. I wonder if RM has armed "security personnel" who protect her? n/t

[jazzhound]

234. I wonder if Rachel's partner keeps a firearm in the home.

If so, Rachel's an even bigger hypocrite that she's already proven herself to be with her constant tirades against "the extremists".