Here's another one for the files. This guy has sent me several menacing messages — nothing new there — but now he has announced that he's coming to visit me. I've put the header for one of Mr Moore's creepy threats below the fold, for the record. His specific email address is not included, so we don't have a repeat of the last episode.
Nice people, these Catholics. If Mr Moore shows up at my door, the only people who will be meeting him are the local police.
From: *******@gmail.com
Subject: The Visit
Date: July 22, 2008 1:21:00 PM CDT
To: myersp@morris.umn.edu
Delivered-To: pzmyers@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.126.5 with SMTP id y5cs516034anc; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.137.5 with SMTP id p5mr6857914qbn.79.1216750876311; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtain-m.tc.umn.edu (mtain-m.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k27si8594403qba.10.2008.07.22.11.21.14; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.155]) by mtain-m.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:21:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so817400ywa.86 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.229.5 with SMTP id b5mr1967219wfh.50.1216750860626; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.36.9 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Return-Path:
Received-Spf: neutral (google.com: 134.84.119.105 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of *******@gmail.com) client-ip=134.84.119.105;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 134.84.119.105 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of *******@gmail.com) smtp.mail=*******@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.155] #+IX+NR+CP+OF (A,-)
X-Umn-Report-As-Spam:
Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=IFJaYvGoqS+lWLF8aMpHE7m5KgGQQy5/bhL7IxGG0S4=; b=i6VOPvLG5tYKRduO3vrtBFDcrxflodpzisATWx1rKlQd04Oe3YFRDoXZkF36qfl2Yu 1i7RJcWtqkUnREc3Ui86XnXLeijiQ/yw8P9sDlYRNnfZWZgS/MFbn3HQNPE95FOS8P/J 3VUXIea/Gek3CV/1R4e6Hoa/BF+1PL2OoyD1c=
Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=GqhSua8Jux2WwyIbiOujLQfe02emvgdgqbuhUWsocjaMb3gK9pwrcyKHaqtdB/sByH SOCBJPq8/wrac4UR7wQ/B24ps1ZaeFMbj3KtNgXh+n9hy7JVZ/Qj7N9JIDgem6uGeFOO gHljPoI2l1/kV/ZgXiRh2Q/2CXAiBNhwjJVuM=
Message-Id:
- Log in to post comments
Love thy neighbor and turn the opther cheek, indeed.
Well, we can be pretty sure it's not THIS Greg Moore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Moore_(race_car_driver)
Greg Moore, assuming it is his real name, is a common name, with probably more than several hundreds of people.
PZ,
If the message contains actual threats, forward the message to abuse@gmail.com - you may get the joker's email address pulled.
At first look, the headers look legit. It was a gmail account to a gmail account, so all the IPs are internal (10.x.x.x)
Murderous nutjobs like this are why I will not be encouraging my children to accept religion or small arms into their lives.
Sorta related (holy food): Allah performs food miracles for Muslims, too.
Unsurprisingly, he doesn't put his visage on toast or meat, since good Muslims don't do that kind of thing. He writes graffiti:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7520149.stm
Glen D
Well, maybe the small arms by themselves, but definitely not in combination with most religious ideology out there.
I should have looked closer. It was delivered to your umn.edu account first. Still, the other IPs listed are consistent with Google's gmail servers.
Well, since Christianity teaches Peace and Love, he's obviously coming to bring you a nice present. A delicious cake, perhaps, or some lovely mums.
This is a serious question:
What is the point of this?
You have stated before, some sort of evidence trail, but that could be accomplished by just printing it out and tossing it in a safe and/or forwarding to someone off campus.
Why bother posting it here?
Strange, Google doesn't add the client ip of the person using their webmail?
PZ, I understand not wanting to publish the email address, but what about the message itself? I'm curious as to what the guy actually wrote.
Yes, do forward the email to abuse@gmail.com. It'll probably also help to get the process started if you need a police investigation.
Hey PZ, time to get this over with:
1. open the koran,
2. insert cracker,
3. slam koran shut.
A twofer.
Send it to the FBI cybercrimes division. These are federal cases and there are a number of federal statutes being broken, felonies.
And hold off doing anything with the crackers. You've made your point, catholic terrorists=moslem terrorists. You have attracted some seriously mentally disturbed individuals and you don't want this.
I have a friend who evaluates incoming to a secure psychiatric lockup. Usually brought in by the police and often turned in by their families and friends who are scared. Some of these troll posters sound just like the poor bastards he has to deal with.
Keith,
With all the religious nut jobs out there, I'm definitely glad I accepted small arms into my life. ;-)
(I'm embarrassed to admit it wasn't until my 30s that I fired a pistol of larger caliber than .22 LR, and I didn't own a rifle above that caliber, nor a shotgun above 20 ga. until my 30s either.)
Yes, I am in the same boat as Taz: If you intended to print the content of the letter, it is not coming through, for me at least, at this end of the intertubes.
While we are in complete disagreement on the main issue, I am sorry you are having these kind of kooks sending threats. Violence is no way to solve a problem.
People who issue threats shouldn't be able to hide, and I can think of no more public place wrt this issue than Pharyngula, BG.
weep.. you wont post the lunatics rant?
Donahue should know who the creeps are that he thinks he is leading.
Agreed. However - I think he's technically desecrated them simply by receiving them.
And PZ, please post the text of some of the threats.
YOU BETTER WATCH OUT!
They're sending out spies,
You better not think,
I'm telling you why!
Crazy Cultists are coming to town!
They hate you in the morning,
They hate you in the night,
They hate & hate in Jesus's name,
If you don't treat that cracker right.
So,
You better watch out!
They're seething with spite,
You better not talk,
Or rebut their lies!
Crazy Cultists are coming to town!
Crazy Cultists are coming to town!
.
I'm embarrassed that you consider that embarrassing. What the hell is wrong with you?
I, too, am curious about the actual content of the message, but PZ did say he was posting the header. He didn't say anything about the body of the e-mail.
BTW, I now have a picture representing my idea for Christ in a cube (a wafer in a Lucite block). It's posted along with a transcript from last Thursday's Catholic Answers Live, in which PZ is denounced as an "atheist fundamentalist." That's not my favorite quote, though. My favorite is "He is behaving like the people who treat other people's religions with scorn." Get a clue, folks. It's genuine scorn. No play-acting at all.
(Un?)fortunately Google's gmail product goes to some length to keep the original sender as anonymous as said sender wishes to be and sanitizes it's added information of things like the original sender's connecting IP address, etc.
In short - all that can really be determined is that yep, there's a high confidence this came from Google. For further action you'd have to hand it off to some authority (be it Google themselves or law enforcement). Sorry.
Call the cops. I'm serious, Professor. Even threatening stuff like that is against the law. Plus, these people are crazy (stalkers, not necessarily Catholics). He might actually come and do something, and then I have no more Pharyngula to read.
Zeno @24,
That is excellent.
Is there any way we can duplicate the look of Han-Solo-encased-in-carbonite for PZ's cracker?
The messiah should be quite well preserved, assuming he survives the freezing process....
I didn't post the contents because there are multiple emails -- for the last few days he has been sending vague "I know where you live" style messages, and now has announced that he's on the way. He's a menacing lunatic.
As for why I post these -- I'm not going to respond with violence, but I do have a soapbox, and I'm not afraid to use it. It's sending a message to these people that they are not anonymous.
Sorry, folks- all the available evidence shows that "accepting small arms into your life" is like sending an engraved invatation to the Grim Reaper to come and get someone close to you, and he'll take you, at a pinch.
I have found that the ideas which a person "accepting small arms into your life" espouses are very much religious ideas, from the ancient cult of firearms worship, as promolgated through the megamedia-church.
But as far as making you safer, by any available evidence, nope.
Of course, if you wish to base your conclusion, and bet your life (and those around you) on myths, legends and self interested lies, no one can stop you. They haven't outlawed religion yet.
Wasn't there a commenter here with the name Greg Moore?
I know it's a common name, but it just seems really familiar for some reason.
Here's one:
Top Hand Cowboy Church
15123 N Hwy 6
Valley Mills TX 76689
254-723-4092
http://www.tophandcowboychurch.com
Description: Pastor: Greg Moore Mail: P O Box 428 Valley Mills, TX 76689 gmoore@txwi.net
i realize the email address is not gmail.
Here is another possibility
http://www.foundationalfamilyresources.org/
this is one of the reasons these idiots shouldn't be doing crap like that. At least one of these other delusional Greg Moore's is totally innocent of threatening PZ. But its too easy to find fanatical Greg Moores. I can imagine less tolerant or internet savvy people than me firing off nastygrams to these guys.
why Donahue remains so morally weak that he doesnt respond properly to these sort of actions by these idiots continues to amaze me.
Why the catholic church, who apparently Donahue doesn't actually represent, despite anything he says doesn't chastise him for this nonsense speaks more of the church than anyting PZ ever said.
This is why I won't use my name at my own blog. I don't discuss religion the way PZ does, but I do criticize creationists. Most of those people are harmless, but it only takes one maniac to ruin your day -- or your life -- and they've got a lot more than one maniac in that camp.
I doubt that Ben Stein has received death threats from biologists, yet he claims that science kills. Reality to Ben: it's anti-science you gotta watch out for!
PZ, you and Donahue deserve each other. But you don't deserve this Moore.
Also, they're members of the Libertarian Party.
It sounds like you've already contacted the local police, which is a good thing. If you haven't already, it would be worth contacting da Feds (I'm not a US American, so I don't know how that works). It is a federal offence, isn't it? Or is that only if he's explicit?
Anyway, I'm glad you're not just shrugging this stuff off. Kwazy kwacker kooks.
Zeno wrote "BTW, I now have a picture representing my idea for Christ in a cube (a wafer in a Lucite block)."
Wow, that's the equivalent of Han Solo frozen in Carbonite! Cool!
Also, can I add my name to the chorus of "PZ, call the FBI".
Is that all the info? I checked the headers on the type of mail I usually get from gmail and one looks like this:
Received: from ?192.168.1.3? ( [76.99.204.242])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h17sm4718723wxd.13.2008.07.18.10.16.35
(version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
This one is the original sent-from address, with the "reported" IP being different than the actual IP - essentially behind a home LAN. It's the IP address in brackets (76.xxx) that's useful for looking up the IP address. You can even look up the general geographic location:
http://www.ip2location.com/demo.aspx
Yeah, I guess I should have clarified: they'll learn how to shoot with what I have, but they won't be getting weapons of their own until they're out of my house.
Anyways, back on topic: PZ, do you own any second amendment means of protecting yourself and your family? I don't want you going out like Theo van Gogh did four years ago.
Update: another thing to check is the original email, *before* it was forwarded from the university mail server to gmail. Some of the important headers may have been replaced, or dropped, or something. The IP address of the original sender should be in there. If "134.84.119.105" is the original sender and not the machine that forwarded it to gmail, then that means this guy lives around Minneapolis. http://www.ip2location.com/134.84.119.105 I strongly believe that this is the machine that forwarded the message. I'd love to see the real original.
Invite him to Qcumbers. See if he has the balls to confront a whole restaurant full of atheists.
PZ, you should turn all threatening email over to the police now. Don't wait to be acosted by a nutcase.
Be safe.
Paul,
I work for Google, and I know that you can (and should) complain about terms of service violations when threats are issued. Google isn't obliged to publish the guy's IP to you, but we can warn him off, suspend or delete his account, and in extreme cases, pass his details on to law enforcement.
Of course, he'll likely just create a new account under a different name, but at least the warning will have been issued.
Please be careful - loonies are dangerous, especially religious ones.
Regards,
A fellow atheist Paul.
I agree, it's time for the police. These are probably all empty threats, but you gotta show them you mean business and you won't tolerate such things.
JJR wrote "(I'm embarrassed to admit it wasn't until my 30s that I fired a pistol of larger caliber than .22 LR, and I didn't own a rifle above that caliber, nor a shotgun above 20 ga. until my 30s either.)"
Well, if you haven't fired an ICBM you should still be embarrassed. Wimp. /sarcasm
(Dear American gun lovers, please realise that to people outside the U.S (and war zones), your gun-o-philia comes across as, quite frankly, insane. Thanks)
What Would Jesus Do?
Seek pre-emptive vengeance, no doubt.
Haha, I despise Libertarian politics. I'm just a very realistic liberal moderate. I'm all about utilizing law enforcement for protection first, but sometimes those guys just can't respond as quickly as a registered 12 gauge can.
P.S. - No, none of my money goes to the NRA.
237
"This one is the original sent-from address, with the "reported" IP being different than the actual IP - essentially behind a home LAN. It's the IP address in brackets (76.xxx) that's useful for looking up the IP address. You can even look up the general geographic location"
FYI - Not always the case, if the sender is using a proxy, then the header would be invalid. Also these are the numbers coming from the ISP, so although they'd give you a general geographic location, they wouldn't be too close. Take for instance, I'm in Santa Cruz, but if you do an rDNS lookup my IP will be coming out of San Jose, it's close, but not that close.
I'm a big fan of
http://www.zoneedit.com/lookup.html?ipaddress=&server=&reverse=Look+it+…
for geographic and domain lookups
It does look like sender info is missing
I have to echo the sentiments of many other people in your comments. Do call the police and provide them copies of the emails. Whether or not Mr. Moore keeps his word or not, you'd much rather be safe than sorry. And I would hate to see anything terrible happen to you.
Its amazing how Donohue and his kind have essentially continued to encourage this pathetic behaviour. Of course, its totally okay to threaten someone's personal wellbeing over a stupid cracker and a book. Not only does this prove how insane they are, but also how inhumane. Even moreso since you know that the Catholic League has people reading this and haven't even added any sort of note to any of their articles saying they discourage this sort of behaviour. That's the very least they could do, but then again, I'm sure they're probably enjoying what's happening to you.
Unfortunately, Google is one of the only webmail providers that doesn't put the actual originating IP address in their messages, nor do they provide much of a mechanism for reporting abuse.
@Greg ... that is an IP @ umn.edu (PZ's uni). I'm guessing his mail is forwarded to or from his gmail account, from or to his uni account.
Unless... the call is coming from inside the house!! :O
@Despittreler: are you sure? I sent myself mail, from my ISP addy, to my gmail addy, and my IP went through. Maybe we're not seeing the sender's IP because this message has been forwarded at some point, between PZ's gmail/uni accounts.
But he is still anonymous. No one here knows which Greg Moore it is.
Post the full headers including his email address if you want him to be non-anonymous.
I know PZ was not happy about the last two he posted with email addresses, but frankly I am glad some idiot sending death threats paid some price for them even if his family had to suffer as well, which I was not happy about, but that was his fault, not ours.
I wish the second email, the guy from Steve's Teas had suffered some consequence as well.
There are (or should be) consequences for these actions the idiots are taking.
I said it before and I'll say it again, if PZ isn't forwarding these to the proper authorities he is just enabling them to keep up this kind of behavior.
There's some background noise about guns coming up here, so I thought I'd throw my cents in:
I don't own any guns, nor would I really consider it, but I have lived with people who owned guns. Outright gun nuts, actually. And you know what?
They're not insane.
All the ones I know are good people and they have a variety of reasons for keeping guns. None of those reasons are delusional or paranoid.
The stats on gun ownership and gun control are also very iffy... so before you start condemning people you consider to be insane, perhaps you should read up on it. Maybe even meet a few?
Now VERY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE... they're insane. I've met quite a few. I can say that I would rather live with a gun nut than a religious nut.
I have to agree with Keith B in #46. Law enforcement can't possibly prevent all crime (even if that were their intended role). Guns are evil, but a necessary evil, and one I'm willing to fight to defend if need be.
nevermind me, Despittreler, I had that backwards >_<
(now im spamming)
jj, I know it's not terribly accurate - but even a ballpark would be helpful. Are we 100 miles away or 1000 miles away? It makes a difference. That IP I posted was probably sent from Delaware but its location gets reported as NJ. Close enough. ;)
By the way, here's a "Greg Moore" in Minneapolis. http://www.twelve.tv/about_company_history.aspx
He's probably in his 60s based on his hire date.
Keith B, Your "clarification" is almost more disturbing than JJR's "embarrassment". Wars do not make one great ...and guns do not make one safe.
#29 wrote:
Sorry, folks- all the available evidence shows that "accepting small arms into your life" is like sending an engraved invatation to the Grim Reaper to come and get someone close to you, and he'll take you, at a pinch.
There is no such credible evidence.
In any case, tell that to my great aunt (were she still alive). When she was elderly and lived alone, a young thug cut her phone line and broke into her home. (This was long before cell phones.) She retreated to her bedroom and figured she's let the guy take what he wanted. The criminal had other ideas, and started to break into her bedroom. My aunt fetched her pistol and shot through the door, which scared the guy away. Her firearm probably saved her life.
As for me, I live alone, I'm not depressed, suicidal, or otherwise mentally unstable. The only way someone would be introduced to the "Grim Reaper" from my guns would be if they attempted to kill me or cause serious bodily harm.
Mooser, I gather from your inaccurate, fear-mongering, and paranoid post, that you have "issues." I agree you shouldn't own a weapon. Suffice to say as long as people like you exist, I plan to remain well armed.
"I have to agree with Keith B in #46. Law enforcement can't possibly prevent all crime (even if that were their intended role). Guns are evil, but a necessary evil, and one I'm willing to fight to defend if need be"
What about in countries where guns are not allowed? Who would you be defending yourself against if they no one had them? I think the 'protection' argument is nothing but bunk, but I do understand the use of guns for hunting, although the badass buck hunters use bow...
Google's not doing anything special to hide the sender's client IP - AFAIK all web mail works this way. When you compose a mail using a web interface, it isn't transmitted to the server using the SMTP protocol that's usually used for sending mail. Instead it's transmitted by HTTP, just like the contents of any other web form. Then it's the HTTP server's job to turn the contents of the web form into an email and send it on by SMTP. So technically the mail originates from the HTTP server (10.143.36.9 in this case). Since this keeps the user's location private and most users would consider that a good thing, there's no incentive to put any extra information into the SMTP headers.
Anecdotes, even those concerning family members, do not constitute data. Why even bring them up?
@zaardvark, yes I mentioned as much in my follow-up. Good eyes though.
@Despittreler, It seems that at least some messages from my fellow gmail-users have the client IP in the message. I think you're wrong on this one.
I hope PZ doesn't have his forwarding system set up to trash the originals; if this header sample is complete there's definitely some dropped information.
Donohue's Catholic League website says that Webster Cook (the UCF student who first stole the cracker or wafer or Eucharist) is being impeached from his position as a member of the student senate. I guess Donohue will get his pound of flesh even if it means picking on some kid who is still in school.
Selcaby, some early, more naive webmail systems operated this way. However, the user's IP address is most definitely known as the source of the request that transmits the mail data. Pretty much all webmail now includes this IP address as the source. The only exception might be if using an anonymizing proxy, Tor, or some other method of address obfuscation.
So much for, "Christian love."
What a fucker.
Also, forward it to abuse@gmail.com.
MH at #44. Yes, in the UK we read gun-o-phile comments and pity the US for its gun culture. Over here, no citizen has a gun, and nobody feels any the worse for it. In fact we quite like it :-)
@60
Partially correct, the web mail server would be the originating IP address, as that's where the message is coming from, but actually some Services will mask this with the IP of the message composer. Google does not do this, but it does happen on certain systems, usually for ease of traceability within an enterprise.
Oh Science, here we go...
I wasn't advocating war. You might notice that if you reread. I am advocating a type of currently legal home security in the United States reserved strictly for dire, last resort scenarios. As a student of International Security, I read every day about armed conflicts. I learn about interstate wars, intrastate wars, genocide, politicide, democide, child soldiers, terrorism, etc. I don't think one person protecting their family is at all comparable to war. Having a weapon in your home certainly CAN make you and your family safe. You just have to know how to use the weapon properly, store it properly and ensure that it's used ONLY in self-defense and as a last resort.
Nice people, these Catholics.
That would be stereotyping.
The easiest way to avoid having to react to nasty death threats and such would seem to me to be.. living in Scandinavia. *
Since I do, I feel a strong incentive to launch my own webpage (I don't buy into the whole blog thing) and see if I can't collect threats from as many religions as possible! (Gotta catch 'em all!)
More to the point:
1) It would be interesting if PZ could note if he has contacted "the authorities", since so many threads are filled with wishes or advice for him to do so.
2) It would also be interesting to read more of the crazy cracker fan-mail.
3) I would think that publishing this one nutters email is going to deter few, if they mainly come in from a catholic newsletter, and don't even bother reading this blog. Especially so, if the number of mails continue in the thousands.
4) If some symbolic action is to be taken wafer-wise, is it not better to let it happen very soon (thus letting this thing spike in one go)?
* Note: I'm sure we have nuts too. Just less of them. Hot tempers are chilled by cool climates.
#61 wrote:
Anecdotes, even those concerning family members, do not constitute data. Why even bring them up?
I bring it up to illustrate the point that any such "data," should it exist, is irrelevant. That's the point of individual rights.
My particular security needs and situation are very personal, and so it's not valid to assume it's not in my best interest to own a gun because of an (alleged) statistical correlation over a large population.
OK, so either I or despettreler is wrong - probably me. It's a long long time since I used webmail other than google.
Anyway, I meant to say you should expect to see different headers on a webmail than on a mail sent using a dedicated mail client.
@72
FYI - My google mail does send my IP info, but I use POP3/SMTP protocols, not HTTP.
You know, I would like to be a stalker, but I am just too damn lazy, and who the hell wants to sit in bushes all day any ways?
I do not know about you, but I get rashes..
Data is not quite as useful when it comes to a particular life.
Throwing it out is just as nonsensical as throwing it in.
Jerk!
(Greg Moore that is.)
Interesting. I checked more of my messages from fellow gmail users. Some have IPs, some don't - and I know which people use the webmail and which do not. The insertion of IPs is not consistent.
I thought about saying so myself, but thought that he almost certainly has done so. Doesn't this imply as much?
I suspect that Myers is doing all that a responsible person would. Remember, he has more than himself to consider in this affair, having to be careful for his family.
I suspect one should worry more about those who don't send emails, in fact.
On the whole, there probably is no great threat. Yet religious violence has happened before (and recently), so I hope the local police are quite efficient in this matter.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
"What about in countries where guns are not allowed? Who would you be defending yourself against if they no one had them? I think the 'protection' argument is nothing but bunk"
Lets. Japan where an indiviual is not allowed to own sporting equipment such as baseball bats and those who practice martial arts with swords must register them the same as a US firearm. England where it is quickly becoming illegal to carry screwdrives, awls, sharp pointy sticks, etc. due to the stabbing violence (BBC report).
So what do we have here? People will kill people. Criminals will use whatever they can. Preventing the honest population from leveling the playing field, thats criminal. I guess you have to ask yourself "Do I want to be a victim?". Rely on the police when you can, but can they be in your house between the time it takes to go from your front door to your bedroom?
why don't we ever get to read these "death threats"??? never saw an actual "death threat" against webster cook, either.
just curious.
jj:
The problem with your argument is this: you (intentionally?) confuse "guns are illegal" with "nobody has a gun".
I don't know, PZ. It seems to me that public acknowledgement of these dangerous people is just encouraging them. I think they may be getting their jollies, even when you don't post the content and/or the email address.
When you get these, send them to law enforcement. They'll soon figure out that you get a lot of threats. I hope you don't say anything one way or another to us, but I hope your house is staked out right now. These are loonies; they'll do what they think their sky daddy wants them to do.
I hope this will be your last post on this subject. All the other emails, make hard-copies for yourself, and forward all pertinent information to the FBI and local authorities. And stop acknowledging them.
I'm not completely certain at this point what purpose publicly acknowledging these emails serves.
PZ - I would forward it on to abuse@gmail.com, as well as the police, as well as even a local news station (possibly one of the ones that have already interviewed you regarding Crackergate). Sure couldn't hurt.
As for the headers, they're unfortunately useless to anyone here because it's gmail-to-gmail. This means that any SMTP messages stayed within Google's walls, until it was forwarded to your UMN account. Had he sent the messages from a home e-mail client rather than a web-based one, we might have had something to go on, but otherwise it's a mystery.
In any case, abuse@google.com should have the necessary IP information for that particular username, and therefore would be able to tell you more info. Or more likely, they'd send it to the police, as it may be a violation of privacy laws or their own terms of service to reveal one user's info to another.
"Sorry, folks- all the available evidence shows that "accepting small arms into your life" is like sending an engraved invatation to the Grim Reaper to come and get someone close to you, and he'll take you, at a pinch."
Au contraire, the numbers show the opposite. Though it's no big difference anyway. But if you're targeted as a victim, it's a whole other game in numbers.
"I have found that the ideas which a person "accepting small arms into your life" espouses are very much religious ideas"
I am an atheist, and I like guns. Nothing religious about self-defense.
This Greg Moore is described as "Right Wing"
http://illegalcurve.blogspot.com/2008/07/rangers-sign-greg-moore.html
OK - I apologise. I just HAD to!
JC
[quote]Nice people, these Catholics.
That would be stereotyping.[/quote]
Stereotyping means ascribing actions or beliefs to a person based upon unrelated commonalities, ie. all black people like watermelon. That's bigotry and stereotyping.
When the commonality IS a belief however, there is no stereotyping involved. Catholics believe in a giant, magical sky fairy. They believe that birth control is evil. They believe that the bible is a holy document revealed by a giant, magical sky fairy. They believe they must ingest a transformed cracker that IS blood and flesh.
All of these beliefs are ludicrous on their face, and to point that out ISN'T stereotyping. The same is true of Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, etc...
You may say, "but not ALL Catholics believe all of that!" Well, in that case, they're bad Catholics, and we're really not talking about them at all.
I suggest folk please do not start looking up Greg Moore's in any location that you were led to by these headers - there is no personally identifiable location in the plain text of the mail headers.
There may be something encoded in the DomainKey that could identify the sender's IP, but that's something for Google to take up.
Below is an analysis of this header, starting with the bottommost Received: [note: I'm operating on the assumption that none of the mail handlers identified in the Received chain have been p0wned/are under the control of Greg Moore; this is probably a safe assumption. Also keep in mind that RFC1918 addresses are *not routable on the general Internet* unless something has gone horribly awry.]
10.143.36.9 with HTTP - This is an internal-to-google (see RFC1918) system that received a message via HTTP (ie. a browser).
10.142.229.5 - still inside the Googleplex
yw-out-1718.google.com - this is the first system that can be identified as existing in the "outside" world. And it's owned by Google (do a DNS lookup and you'll get back a list of A records, all located in the same 74.125.46.x block)
from yw-out-1718.google.com by mtain-m.tc.umn.edu - note the source machine (yw-out...) matches the host in the previous line. They match, so there's a good chance this is a legitimate handoff. The receiver was identified as a umn.edu system, so unless our Mr. Moore has access to the email gateways at umd.edu there is a verifiable chain of evidence that this email was not forged and did indeed originate within Google.
from mtain-m.tc.umn.edu by mx.google.com - this is like the above, but in reverse. Note the original delivery address of myersp at morris.xxxx; at this point PZ has his mail forwarded back to his google address (and/or also passed along into UMNs systems). Now mtain-m.tc.umd.edu has turned the message around and handed it off to mx.google.com, which means
10.65.137.5 - we're back in the Googleplex now (RFC1918, remember?)
10.100.126.5 - the final server to accept the mail into PZ's gmail mailbox, whereupon he opens a web browser, logs in, and is met with the deranged rantings of an anonymous lunatic.
No identifiable source. Again, please do everyone a favor and don't pick some random Greg Moore out of a google search because there's a geographic correlation - it's meaningless.
Sorry to ramble, but I'm hoping the full explanation will prevent other innocent people from being dragged into this kerfluffle.
Stereotyping means ascribing actions or beliefs to a person based upon unrelated commonalities, ie. all black people like watermelon. That's bigotry and stereotyping.
When the commonality IS a belief however, there is no stereotyping involved. Catholics believe in a giant, magical sky fairy. They believe that birth control is evil. They believe that the bible is a holy document revealed by a giant, magical sky fairy. They believe they must ingest a transformed cracker that IS blood and flesh.
All of these beliefs are ludicrous on their face, and to point that out ISN'T stereotyping. The same is true of Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists, etc...
You may say, "but not ALL Catholics believe all of that!" Well, in that case, they're bad Catholics, and we're really not talking about them at all.
oops, sorry about the double post, was screwing with the html tags
So when this religious slime comes to your door, the police will be ready with their clubs marked "god", and will commence laying a little intelligently designed battering when he commences his assault. That is if the "gods" beat him to the first punch! Then, when he is lying there pummelled by the 'gods", you can then administer a revival of nourishing crackers!
I'll be the first to admit: the data on whether or not gun control or having arms in the home is safer is still very foggy. However, until I see some strong evidence saying that having a firearm locked away is very, very highly unnecessary, I'm not even going to consider relieving myself of a firearm.
And even beyond the issue of what the majority consensus of the data might end up being, just because a scenario is extremely unlikely doesn't mean that it still cannot occur. Gun control could come out on top as the best policy, I could sell my gun and yet I could still be held at gun or knifepoint by some statistically anomalous assailant. I don't like the idea of taking such a risk, no matter how small it is. It's my life I am having to consider, you know? The same holds true for PZ, and that's why I feel he should at least consider the option of obtaining and registering some kind of legal small arms weapon.
puzzler #80: "why don't we ever get to read these "death threats"??? never saw an actual "death threat" against webster cook, either. "
Because one has to be able to read in order to see the death threats that PZ has posted before.
Randy @ #79
"I guess you have to ask yourself "Do I want to be a victim?"."
How about "do I want to perpetuate a culture of fear by constantly being afraid and hoping weapons will save me from the Unknown Assailant"?
Personally, I'd rather be come at with a knife than a gun, and rather a stick than a knife. You see how that ties together? *
I mean, ultimately, using your idea, since criminals could have access to tanks and nuclear weapons, obviously so should I. What with being a lawful person and all.
A battle where the sword is drawn is already lost.
* Note: I guess you took that Monty Python sketch as plain truth. "How to defend yourself against someone armed with a piece of fresh fruit"..
It's sad to see so many "free thinkers" so angry to realize that other free people will live and think differently than they do.
OK, the "J" who last posted wasn't the J you all know and loath. No idea who it is. Maybe one of the Nick Gotts crowd.
Not to beat the firearms issues to death, but...
"when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Just a thought.
Glen @ #78
"I thought about saying so myself, but thought that he almost certainly has done so. Doesn't this imply as much?"
Well, alleviating the confusion (and possibly some of those comments), would be as easy as a new entry stating as much.
I've pulled my imaginary goatee for a couple of minutes, trying to figure out what would be negative about such action, and came up blank. Which suggests to me he either has not done this, or is reluctant to advertise the fact based on things I cannot figure out.
I have to say I'd like to see the actual message. For one thing, I notice a number of people here leaping to the conclusion that all of the threats originate mostly from current, churched, Catholics.
I assume PZ has evidence, but I'd like to see it. Just acting as a good atheist should and not taking something on faith.
Guns: Bad idea, but why bother discussing it? It's just another religion, really.
PZ would be wise to invest in some firearms, especially if he's going do play any monkey business with a Koran.
It's sad to see that you still think smug holier-than-thou indictments constitute an argument, especially when so many here have tried their level best to teach you otherwise.
But enough of that. Where is it that you're buying so much soap from that they still ship it in boxes?
The genuflecting cracker nibblers and their snake handling allies have made life very difficult for folk who work at Women's clinics, and the majority of them, especially the doctors carry pistols and wear body armor. Is there something in History I'm not seeing that will protect our beloved PZ from their rage?
I was born and raised in Texas, and have seen the religious fanatic up close and personal. They are serious as cancer and just as insidious.
I have to agree with BG (#52). Your rationale for posting the emails is to expose these scumbags to the light of day. Just posting what you posted here allows them to keep their anonymity. Right? You may as well not post anything at all from their emails. Like so many others though, I do hope you are forwarding these threats on to law enforcement.
Maybe, but he does a good impression of you. Perhaps you guys are using the same dry-cleaning bags to wrap your heads in while you sleep.
I predict a Facebook group in the future!
Guns and Stalkers.
You don't have to be a religious nut-job to own a gun. Think of it in terms of an evolutionary arms race. You have criminals with weapons, and you arm yourself with what? A baseball bat? You want to be a Dodo, go for it, but when your flightless status is interrupted by a predator who can catch you and harm you, then you better learn to fly, grow some claws, or somehow find a way to up the ante. I'm not sensationalizing here, and I know crime isn't as rampant as the media makes us believe, but still, a little education regarding a protective weapon isn't a bad thing. I know one major criticism is the gun accidents in the home, but there are ways to reduce the likelyhood. My father owned a few guns, and we were introduced at an early age to use them safely, and in a responsible manner. The power and wow factor of them was never an issue because it wasn't sensationalized. It's like those of us who drank some wine, or beer with parental approval for New Years, or other such occasions reduced our chances of college binging.
As for the stalker, the concern is justified but the chances of him actually doing anything are pretty slim. First, he has to find Morris, which isn't exactly the biggest city. These fuckers are all armchair cowards and the chance of doing anything is pretty slim. Yet, I would feel a lot safer if I knew PZ had a shotgun in his house. I mean, you don't need a glock, but just the noise of a shotgun loading should have any would-be stalker soiling his papal approved underwear.
These same idiots actually feel threatened by Islamic terrorism, when they themselves act in such vile and idiotic manners. Anonymous threats represent some desperate craven behavior that could only come about out of lunacy.
Get a gun
Over a cracker? This world is hopeless.
J @ 94 No, you people do not live and think differently than free thinkers. The life you lead is all based on the thought in your skulls that there is a god that directs all there is in the universe and the very thoughts which infest and infect your demented brains. You are the angry ones; the very idea that normal people can dispense with the irrational lives you lead, both in thought and deed, just pisses you off to no end. It's as if you were to declare, "Hey, we are demented morons who believe in imaginary gods; why the hell doesn't everyone else?" Indeed, it is because of us that the whole world has not gone completely bonkers with the cesspit pox of religion. Hell, I'd be pissed if I were like you too, but I can always console my pathetic life with crackers!
I don't need guns. I'm happy to insert the bullets manually.
Helioprogenus @ #104
"You don't have to be a religious nut-job to own a gun. Think of it in terms of an evolutionary arms race. You have criminals with weapons, and you arm yourself with what? A baseball bat? You want to be a Dodo, go for it, but.. blah blah"
You cannot possibly be serious. That's just what a religious nut-job would say!
Why can't their god defend himself?
Not sure how the thread shifted to guns, however, I'm from the UK, and we just don't have them any more. Ever since the Dunblane tragedy in my native Scotland, guns were banned UK wide, and the country is a better place.
Even before the ban, I held the view that guns have no place in a civilized society. Neither does religion, and strangely, the USA seems to have too much of both ;-)
Imagine getting rid of both......
@Xeno, it doesn't matter what a religious nut job would say. What matters is how you view the defense of your and your family's life.
There are plenty of things you will find in common with a religious nut job. Maybe your favorite color is blue, or you like to eat spaghetti, or you love dogs, etc. In some respects, there are things that religious nut-jobs may believe that makes some rational sense, and so why disagree with it, just cause it came from a raving loon?
"Guns have no place in a civilized society."
Really? How would your civilized society protect itself from an uncivilized one? Pacifism only works when everyone else is a pacifist, too. Now, if you're comfortable with the government having guns, but the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.
"Nice people, these Catholics."
Because this creep is representative of all Roman Catholics, of course.
The lunacy or thuggery of some - in this case, one - do not justify categorical bigoted slander.
I will defend PZ's free speech rights without hesitation, but to my atheist eyes his "cracker" challenge is exactly the kind of witless and puerile stunt he wrongly accused the Danish Mohammed cartoonists of.
I was disappointed and surprised over PZ's by-the-numbers Politically Correct take on the infamous cartoons.
When it comes to "these Catholics," PZ seems positively spoiling for a fight and happy to go out his way to offend and provoke them - which, let me be clear, he has the absolute right to do - but then appears to bend over backwards to be understanding and sympathetic to violently intolerant Muslims.
I'm beginning to wonder whether his outspoken and terrific advocacy of secularism and science is principled and unconditional... or subject to the diktat of MultiCulturalist ideology.
"If Mr Moore shows up at my door, the only people who will be meeting him are the local police."
What makes anyone think that 'Mr. Moore' will be so obvious as to show up at the door? I would get the process going for law enforcement to investigate him, assuming those threats appear sincere. At the very least, have the FBI and Google comb through his past email. Common sense...
Rystefn, tell me about it. My armenian ancestors were disarmed of their weapons, and what happened? They were all nearly annhilated by the Ottomomans. Their place of origin was destroyed and their past erased from the record.
Few of us will actually have the need for armed self-defense; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for guns is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to tyranny.
Maybe one of the Nick Gotts crowd. - J (or J).
Verily, J, my name is legion, for we are many! Evil leftist demons whispering our politically correct, anti-American socialistic seductions! Be afraid, J, be very afraid - for if you listen to us, you might find yourself thinking new thoughts; even seeing glimpses of the world as it really is!
Another biology professor dissing the Catholic Church, in front of a large audience.
Dr. Greg Graffin and Bad Religion, with "Sinister Rouge":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wERP_p6NCg
Hoo-boy.
"Guns have no place in a civilized society."
---
"Really? How would your civilized society protect itself from an uncivilized one? Pacifism only works when everyone else is a pacifist, too."
Well put, Rystefn.
Civilization involves harnessing and controlling force - including violence - folks, not in hallucinating some Eloi-like sanctuary where we can pretend such things don't exist.
There is nothing enlightened or altruistic about being helpless.
nice one
BrainFromArous : I didn't say a civilised society can't have very well funded armed services :-)
However, there is still no case for guns being randomly available on every street, especially to those are barely able to use them.
P.
BrainFromArous : I didn't say a civilised society can't have very well funded armed services :-)
However, there is still no case for guns being randomly available on every street, especially to those are barely able to use them.
P.
Some of the anti-gun comments made show me people know nothing about guns, and do not want to learn.
The actions taken against PZ show me there is NO DIFFERENCE between religious extremists -- be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc., etc., etc.
Do any of the anti-gun, anti-religious-extremism, folks really think they will be protected by the "authorities", when the Theocrats come for them?
Self defense is a time honored tradition.
#113 is right on. I hate guns, but I'm sold on the necessity to maintain the capacity for violence in self-defense. I sincerely hope I never need to, but that decision may not be up to me. It's wonderful that many of you have the luxury of thinking otherwise; see your privilege for what it is, and understand that not everyone is so fortunate.
@113
Now if you're comfortable with the government having nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, high-energy beam weapons, surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, inter-continental ballistic missiles, satellite weapons, & etc... and the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.
[sarcasm, in case you missed it.]
Not having guns != helpless.
Somehow I've managed to protect myself from physical violence as well as intervene and halt or prevent physical altercations between others on more than a few occasions without ever having used a gun. Then again, I am armed with a deadly, rapier-like wit.
But, I suppose my multiple personal experiences don't compare to the widespread and lasting peace brought to the world by Auntie Twelve Gauge above.
Xeno @ 108 It's obvious where your sentiments lie to gun ownership, and I totally agree with Helioprogenus about the ever insinuating and perhaps behavior modification at the mere sight and sound of a gun. Assuming only, that this cretin had the hindsight not to bring a gun himself when he confronted his adversary who has a gun in his hand or on his belt, would he be so foollhardy to risk his life and attack that person, knowing that he may die on the spot? Many a gun has just the presence to deter a crime without being fired. I certainly would think twice about my welfare in the blatant scenario of instant death. As for choosing the right self defence in precarious situations, I have only to quote Sean Connery in the movie "The Untouchables": "If he brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun." That one elevation of deadly force against a lesser instrument will determine the outcome, and not your objection to necessary forceful means.
It seems pretty clear that the off-topic arms debate hinges more on emotion than clear thinking.
Dare I suggest that perhaps the local gun culture influences our opinions? Guns are not openly available here, and I am glad. I did my armed service, noting well an extensive number of people who I'd watch more closely than the enemy in a combat scenario, given their insistance on pointing their guns at the people they were talking to.
The thought of "uneducated civilians" having a drawer of weapons on every street corner, with that in mind, makes me shiver. As a law abiding citizen you know.
Because surely has there never been an incident of flared tempers, bad judgement, teenagers on drugs, or crimes of opportunity that could possibly be influenced more negatively by everyone involved having highly lethal weapons at their disposal.
Coming off my military service, I felt pretty strongly that any situation that you haven't cleared up without using your weapon, is a situation gone very wrong.
I keep the jawbone of an ass in my night table for the very reasons you describe, Tina.
@117
Few of us will actually have the need for armed self-defense; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for guns is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to tyranny.
Few of us will actually have the need to shoot down a hijacked aircraft; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for surface-to-air missiles is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to terrorism.
@117
[Correction]
Few of us will actually have the need to shoot down a hijacked aircraft; but there's no sound reason for the law-abiding citizen to be denied that opportunity. The ultimate argument for surface-to-air missiles is that their presence throughout the populace is an immense deterrent to terrorism.
Holbach @ #129
"Many a gun has just the presence to deter a crime without being fired. "
Having, I assumed, read many of the posts here on faulty creationist reasoning, you see the error of this assertion "proving" that guns (or rather widespread adoption of guns) are good.
"As for choosing the right self defence in precarious situations, I have only to quote Sean Connery in the movie "The Untouchables": "If he brings a knife to a fight, you bring a gun."
You do realize the scenario is that of a small taskforce assaulting a gigantic crime syndicate in a corrupt city? And also that the movie actually never comes to the conclusion that this is the right choice.
I fail to see the obvious connection to individuals in reasonably civilized countries.
Joe Bob put it nicely at #127, and I alluded to the same earlier:
"Now if you're comfortable with the government having nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, high-energy beam weapons, surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, inter-continental ballistic missiles, satellite weapons, & etc... and the people having none, that's your call. I, for one, am not. The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people."
Why stop at guns?
Or, rephrased, if you believe guns are a right and a deterrent, at what point would you draw the line? Haubitz? Tank? Personal army? Nuclear arms?
And more importantly, why are you drawing that line?
Forgive me holy captain's wafer in the sky for I am tired of talking of your crackery goodness. The guns thing is a fun diversion though. I'm somewhat surprised at some of the anti-gun comments. I didn't grow up in a family with any hunters, my parents didn't have guns and really said nothing about them. I went to college, still consider myself a science loving geek and all that.
One day the political issue of guns came up. I didn't really know anything about it so I did what any good thinking person does and started doing some research. My initial guess that guns were unsafe and allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public was out right dangerous. I couldn't find any evidence to support my guess though. There's lots of statistics from both sides of the table that are biased to their side but when looking at raw numbers from government agencies not pushing their agenda, I didn't find anything.
I found that the often cited "you're X times more likely to be harmed by your own gun" is based on a paper by Kellermann. I tracked down the Kellermann study and its complete rubbish. I tracked down the numbers from state departments that issue carry permits. I found that in Florida they've issued over 1.3 million concealed carry licenses since the program began and have revoked the whopping total of 165 due to firearms crimes. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
Along with this came the realization that I was largely responsible for protecting myself. The police probably aren't going to be with me on the streets when I need them. If I need them now at home, they're only minutes away. I don't even know what I was thinking really. I keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen because I know the guys with them might take too long to get there, but why did I think the man with a gun wouldn't take too long to get there? It turns out that people are just animals and some do terrible things to others, no matter what tools are available.
Not only did it seem that my guess was wrong but I had decided that perhaps I should be something other than helpless. I'd encourage anyone else to go digging for real unbiased numbers and see if they hold up. When you hear people talking about assault weapons don't take the Brady Group or NRA word for it, go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and see how many people are killed with rifles at all, let alone assault rifles. its a startling low number.
Anyway the short of it is, do your research. There is a lot of work out there in peer reviewed journals and directly from state and federal agencies. You might find your emotional convictions aren't rooted in sound data, I sure did.
Be careful good professor.
I won't dive into the whole Second Amendment debate, but if you should choose to arm yourself, this should be your weapon of choice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs
@129
I have only to quote Chuck Norris in the movie I am currently writing with him in mind for the main role: "If he brings a gun, you bring a bazooka." That one elevation of deadly force against a lesser instrument will determine the outcome, and not your objection to necessary forceful means.
Stephen:
But guns are so inordinately powerful. In self-defense, they can so easily be applied in a manner severely disproportionate to the intial stimulus.
For example, if you were getting mugged, and you shot them, is that really self-defense, or is it retaliation? Is it just? Certainly they should not have been mugging you, but does that give you the right to maim or murder? That's escalation, and it's a tough snowball to stop rolling.
So I figure the buck has to stop with me. The only way to get people to stop being violent is to not be violent myself. That way, I am not a vector of infection for violence.
HOWEVER: I'm not in favor of more gun laws. FORCING people to give up violence is oxymoronic. People must be convinced by reason to give up violence on their own. Which is probably going to take a while, so I've got to learn some patience.
Who needs a gun when you can use a witty repost or dextrous word play to deter virtually an attacker. Alexie Sayle can teach you how to do it. Link to instructional video below.
ALEXIE SAYLE - NOBLE ART OF VERBAL ABUSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnPfgX82GmM
Longtime Lurker @ #136
"I won't dive into the whole Second Amendment debate, but if you should choose to arm yourself, this should be your weapon of choice:"
I laff'd. Also, this is one weapon I would like on my side. Does it matter who the bad guy is if you put Christopher Walken in their face? I think not.
Based on a simple probability calculation, there are approximately 494 Greg Moores in the country according to How Many of Me
@135
Go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and see how many people are killed with bazookas, let alone beam weapons. its a startling low number.
[Don't look at how many were killed with handguns, though.]
Just to weigh in on the gun issue...
Let's take a look at the risks involved here with personal gun ownership... On the one hand, if you don't own firearms, you're running the risk that a Bad Person will show up at your home or accost you on the street and you won't have your (loaded, conveniently located) firearm (that you're more willing to use to deal death and more skilled at using and quicker on the draw with than the Bad Person is) available to defend yourself. On the other hand, if you do own firearms for the purpose of self-defense (and are therefore keeping them loaded and conveniently located), then you're running the risk that your small child/pet/drunken guest/suicidal or otherwise deranged loved one/own carelessness or identification error will cause a firearm-related tragedy.
In a society where gun ownership is legal, everyone's got to evaluate these risks for themselves and choose which they prefer. I can see that there might be circumstances where one might reasonably prefer the second set of risks to the first. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Americans do not live in such circumstances, although some undoubtedly do. I tend to be very suspicious of the attitude that firearms are an absolute necessity for self-defense in most parts of this country. To me it smacks of the kind of paranoid over-dramatization of threat levels that got us into the Iraq war, and it makes me wonder uncomfortably about how cautious I can expect the firearm owner in question to be about verifying their target before they pull the trigger.
On the other hand, I don't really begrudge anyone firearm ownership, provided they're well-trained in the use of their weapons and handle them with due regard for the safety of others (including careful control of who gets their hands on them). As I've said before, I think it's not unreasonable to believe that in some circumstances a gun might enhance one's personal safety, and they're also simply interesting implements in their own right, with a lot of cool engineering design, and a fair bit of skill involved in (and satisfaction to be gained from) using them well.
I admit that on a social level I do have certain concerns in regard to legal firearm ownership. Other than the fact that it tends to make it easier for criminals to acquire guns, which is dangerous both to civilians and to law enforcement, there's also just the fact that a lot of people are careless and stupid. The notion that the drunk, moronic fratboys I see tearing up campustown after a big game could potentially legally possess guns (although presumably not on campus) gives me chills.
On the other hand, we do let even moronic fratboys own and operate motor vehicles (although they're not supposed to do it while they're drunk), which are potentially equally dangerous. One difference between guns, and firearms, of course, is that cars are a pretty crucial means of transport for many people, and not being able to drive could make someone's life pretty miserable. Guns aren't (for most people) anywhere near so basic to the ability to successfully navigate day to day life.
The other difference between cars and guns is that *nobody* is allowed to drive unless they've demonstrated that they know how to operate a car according to some basic standards of safety. Gun licensing processes don't (in my admittedly limited experience) require any kind of demonstration of competency whatsoever, simply confirmation that one is who one says one is and is not a known dangerous criminal. It seems to me that if we want to keep guns legal in this country (which many, although not all, interpretations of the Second Amendment suggest we must), then we ought to institute some kind of competency testing into the licensing procedure, similar in concept to the driver's test but much more rigorous.
--------
I personally don't own any guns, although I have family members who do. And as long as people are responsible about it, I really don't much care. But the "zOMG EVIL CRIMINALS!111!!ONE!!1!" defense of gun ownership really seems kind of lame to me. I'm much more sympathetic to arguments along the lines of, "Hey, you know what? I just plain like having guns." (Of course, I'm also sympathetic to people who are in dangerous circumstances where a gun really might be helpful.) I just wish our national conversation on the subject could get beyond this kind of, "zOMG GUNS EVIL," "zOMG CRIMINALS EVIL," polarization into opposing paranoias, because it seems like we keep spinning and spinning on this and never really get anywhere.
*shrug* I dunno. Maybe I'm finding a false center and there isn't really one on this. I just find myself sorta seeing both sides' point and feeling like the two positions don't have to be completely mutually exclusive.
That argument (and the other ones like it) doesn't fly. Most, if not all, of the weaponry that you mentioned was made for governments to take out disturbingly large numbers of people and they are illegal for citizens to purchase (as if any of us had the money for it). Those for gun ownership in the home are advocating legal small arms (handgun, shotgun, etc), registration of and training with purchased firearms and a personal policy of extreme caution around how they are stored, used and even talked about.
Speaking of armed escalation, we're not talking about criminals with bazookas here. We're talking about armed intruders looking to rob you of your possessions and possibly harm you and your family members in the process. Now if you want to sit there with a baseball bat wondering whether the intruder has a gun, that's up to you. I would feel much more comfortable knowing I can rightfully defend myself.
As for armed escalation on a national level, that's another story all together. WWII pretty much showed what a determined country with a new usable weapon can do. You think the US government decided to drop the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war? It was basically sabre rattling against the soviet union. One person in charge with a destructive weapon is a framework that's set for recklessness. An arms race is a proper analogy here because ultimately, it's also a natural mechanism.
In a truly utopian world, there are no guns to speak of and people just shoot each other with at worst, tranquilizer darts. But unfortunately, we don't live in a utopian world. There are guns, the majority of them happen to be unregistered, and in the hands of criminals (speaking of the US and other countries with such an abundance of arms in the general populace). We don't have to look at the socio-economic hardships they had to endure to turn them into a life of crime. I feel bad for a society that allows people to fall through the cracks like that, but at the same time, they don't reciprocate any mercy. If they're attempting to harm my family or my property, well, it's best to have an effective method of thwarting that; rather then laying helpless on the ground, allowing your destiny to be controlled by someone who doesn't care for your life.
Wow, this is just crazy. You keep yourself safe PZ.
Now I'm not trying to be judgmental here, but as a Canadian, who has never even touched a gun, I find it so strange and kinda appalling that some of you actually have guns in your home and will teach your children how to use them. Wow, in some ways we neighbours live in very different worlds!
At least he's deciding to start his own fatwa culture. A pathetic little shit who thinks violence is the answer. Terrorist scum!
That's the point. Your argument about how owning little bitty guns for shooting burglers (oops, that was a burgler, wasn't it?) is a defense against government tyranny is baloney.
@138
It sounds like you're saying you'd allow a mugger, home invader, or rogue societal element to kill or cripple you and/or members of your family in order to prove some point about pacifism. I doubt strongly, if you were actually put in that position, that you would have the same high ideals. I invite you to reevaluate your stance, and to reconsider your use of the word "murder" to describe an act of self-defense.
Helioprogenus @ #145
"We're talking about armed intruders looking to rob you of your possessions and possibly harm you and your family members in the process. Now if you want to sit there with a baseball bat wondering whether the intruder has a gun, that's up to you."
I'm sorry, is this horribly common where you live? I haven't even read about this scenario happening.
Most professional criminals you hear about don't do crimes of this sort. The risk is high, the gain small.
The whackjob crazies I would assume have a very hard time socializing and planning (to get and bring a gun).
Who is this unseen terror?
@145
Well, in the rest of the civilized world, the general populace is unarmed and the violent crime rate is LOWER. You're insane to think that the answer is for everyone to get more guns.
I don't even understand that last sentence in relation to what I've been saying, Joe Bob. I don't remember saying anything about owning guns to defend yourself against government tyranny.
Kel @ #147
"At least he's deciding to start his own fatwa culture. A pathetic little shit who thinks violence is the answer. Terrorist scum!"
Yes! Terrorist scum! Let's invade his country as retaliation! Oh, wait.. ;)
We're not talking about the rest of the civilized world here joe bob. Did you see me mention the US and other countries that have an abundance of unregistered weapons? As I said, it's an arms race. In the UK, or Japan, the fact that less people have guns can give you comfort, but you know that they also probably have knives or other such weapons. Thereore, arming yourself with a bat against a guy with a knife isn't a bad idea. In the US, the game is completely different.
@152
You were responding to me responding to #133. Go read 113.
But, just to get it out of the way: the likelihood of America becoming a violently oppressive Autocracy is pretty damn slim. It's not even on my radar right now.
[Correction]
@152
You were responding to me responding to #113. Go read 113.
Helioprogenus @
This is a good illustration of the problem of the gun lobby. It's a bit like irreducible complexity......they can't think of a universe without guns, so they build one based on that premise.
And, to an earlier post about dictatorships disarming, the US government has a different strategy : keeping everyone so scared of terrorism that civil liberties have been dispensed with, and everyone is looking at anyone vaguely Arabic as a terrorist.
Like I said earlier : guns have no place in a civilised society. Unfortunately, these days, there seem to be more gun-totoing loonies around the world than otherwise. I just hoped that America wouldn't be the same. I guess it's very hard to be civilised when surrounded by barbarians.
"And more importantly, why are you drawing that line?"
I don't draw that line. That line has been drawn for me, and without my consent. The second amendment is NOT about home defense or stopping a mugger, it's about fighting your own government. We live in a world where doing so requires tanks, jets, missiles, and more. No, I am not advocating armed rebellion when an election doesn't go your way, but I am very much advocating that people should maintain the ability to defend themselves against the unjust actions of their own government. Option of last resort, but an option that should - MUST - remain open. I am very much against assault weapon bans, machine gun restrictions, and the like.
No, I'm not saying any random person with a few million to spare should be able to acquire an Abrahms tank - but right now, any random person with a driver's license and a pair of bolt-cutters could get one, so how much worse would that be, anyway, really?
I honestly believe their should be a battery of competency tests before anyone gets their hands on a gun, but I also think there should be a battery of comeptency tests before anyone can get their hands on a motor vehicle, a drastically more dangerous implement by any sane assessment. Few private citizens have an honest need for a motor vehicle, people just think they do, and think they have a right to the things. That frightens me quite a lot more than people wanting guns.
All this talk of guns and nary a mention of PZ's amazing cyberpistol?
I'm disappointed.
@154
And in an arms race, everyone loses. So why are you encouraging the escalation of an arms race?
"As I said, it's an arms race. In the UK, or Japan, the fact that less people have guns can give you comfort, but you know that they also probably have knives or other such weapons. Thereore, arming yourself with a bat against a guy with a knife isn't a bad idea."
I think there is a fundamental flaw in this here reasoning. Are you assuming that no place has ever reduced their "arms race level"?
If not, are you arguing that we cannot reduce the arms race level now?
I thought the entire point of the suggestions so far was that it would be much nicer to fear knives than guns or shotguns or assault rifles (escalating onwards apparently). That is, you're agreeing with me then?
I think you Canadians have pretty high rates of gun ownership too. I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching children how to use guns, as long as it's for sport or hunting, and the children aren't too young.
Well, we've got God and Guns in full representation here. Now if only someone would bring up Gays we'd have a republican trifecta of talking points to bash around...
BluesBassist, there is certainly evidence that accidental deaths with firearms generally occur in homes with firearms and do not occur in homes without firearms. There is also a correlation of shooting deaths related to domestic violence and suicide when firearms are present in the home.
I own guns, I'm glad you own guns (if you want to own guns). I don't believe in separating law-abiding citizens from guns. But it is demonstrably true that the most likely person to die from the firearms you own is you or a person you love. This is simply because accidents, suicide and domestic violence are much, much, much common than home intrusions like you describe.
@159
Pussy! The only defense against tyranny is a high-energy beam weapon in every home!
"Few private citizens have an honest need for a motor vehicle,"
You're a loony. Have you used public transport in, say, Silicon Valley, if you're even close enough to get there? America is built on the premise that walking is redundant, and that cars are like breathing.
In Holland, bicycles are normal and pervasive, and there these amazing things, like walkways and cycle paths everywhere, which cars have to give way to. In the valley, even walking 500 yards from my hotel to the office is lethally dangerous because there isn't anywhere to walk.
Guns and violence are the last refuge of the incompetent.
unicow @ 159
"I don't draw that line."
At this point I was going to applaud you for at least being consistent.
"The second amendment is NOT about home defense or stopping a mugger, it's about fighting your own government."
At this point I was going to question your ethnocentrism and your interpretation of the second amendment.
" I am very much against assault weapon bans, machine gun restrictions, and the like."
followed by
"I honestly believe their should be a battery of competency tests before anyone gets their hands on a gun, but I also think there should be a battery of comeptency tests before anyone can get their hands on a motor vehicle"
At this point I was very confused.
You're FOR people owning weapons (but with a competence test), but you want to RESTRICT their ability to drive vehicles (you do have to take a test already to get a drivers license, right?)...
@159
Try driving your gun to the grocery store. Try stopping a burglar or overthrowing the government with your car.
Well at least in some civilized societies home made rocket launchers are ok for seed and political pamphlet dispersal. However I wonder how long one of these homemade babies would last if they were being trailered down the street in the direction of one of our local airports? Well maybe if the rider was an attractive Scandinavian woman, LOL!
http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/N55ROCKETSYSTEM/N55ROCKETSYSTEM.html
I live in the Houston area. More precisely, in the SE, where it is against the law for the buses to run. If it is lethally dangerous to walk instead of drive, that is less reason for people to have cars, not more... or are you saying millions of dangerous, unqualified idiots with motor vehicles are the reason you must have one? In order to defend your life from the car-driving maniacs, you must also have a car? Is that what you're saying? The answer to the car problem is more cars, not less?
You're wrong, by the way. Guns and violence are the FIRST resort of the incompetent. If you think every problem can be resolved without violence, you're the lunatic, not me.
Psst... Xeno,
I'm 160... Just a lame comment about cyberpistols.
Staying out of this gun thing.
PZ, while I often applaud your brazenness in your fight against irrationality, at this point your bravado could potentially threaten the lives of yourself and your loved ones. You know how crazy these people are; you know that you're playing with fire. It's time for you to stop giving these lunatics free air time and start protecting yourself.
I just felt compelled to get some Bill Hicks in here:
"England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns; whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection! ..and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one."
You don't have to be a religious nut-job to own a gun. Think of it in terms of an evolutionary arms race.
Uh, evolution is a mindless process. Those with minds and goals are advised to go about it differently.
The fact that there's been a de-emphasis on gun owndership in the UK and Japan is great. Unfortunately, at this time, it's impossible to do in the US without first, disarming the populace before worrying about the illicit guns.
As for an arms race, everybody loses? What kind of empty rhetoric is that? An arms race isn't about being beneficial or harmful, but is just a process. Yes, it is possible to de-escalate it in terms of human interactions, and if I lived in the UK, or Japan, or anywhere that isn't as ubiquitous with guns, it wouldn't be an issue. However, I live in a country where any random religious idiot can come to my door and harm me if he chooses? Well fuck that, I'll arm myself. You keep your self-righteous reasoning in places that don't have similar gun related problems. Further, let's not forget that as the economy tanks, which it is, crime goes up. There's no better time then now to buy a weapon, train yourself in proper responsible usage, and feel a little safter. I would hope I'll never have to use it, but the fact that it's there gives me some comfort.
Just throwing out my opinion on gun control...
If there were some way to effectively eliminate the majority of all the handguns in circulation, I would support a ban. I think that shotguns and hunting rifles should remain legal to properly licensed citizens. My main problem with handguns in that they're so concealable. A shotgun should suffice for self defense in the home, but John Smith can't stick it into the crotch of his pants before strolling off to a local gang dispute.
At the same time, if handguns were simply made illegal right now we wouldn't really get anywhere.
Unicow, I'm sorry. I guess the blind rage made me make mistakes.. ;)
And you're right. We mustn't forget PZ has set a new standard for being armed.
The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.
Not only is this a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, it's also false.
#167 "Guns and violence are the last refuge of the incompetent."
What is the realistic advice on how I can defend myself from those stronger, younger, or in larger numbers than myself? Learn to box? Weightlift? I am not at all eager for anything to come to violence but if someone brings it to me, what do you feel as though the appropriate option is to protect my well being?
#158 "This is a good illustration of the problem of the gun lobby. It's a bit like irreducible complexity......they can't think of a universe without guns, so they build one based on that premise."
Well to some degree I have to ask, why should they? The world has guns and they are not going away any more than drugs are. Shouldn't our focus be more on the socio-economic conditions that lead to criminal behavior or lead people to disregard the lives of others more than on some pie in the sky scenario of it being possible to remove all guns from society?
For that matter though I wouldn't want to remove all guns from society. I want an equalizer for the weak, old, or disabled to be able to use against those that would do them harm.
Helioprogenus @ #176
"As for an arms race, everybody loses? What kind of empty rhetoric is that?"
Preceded by:
"The fact that there's been a de-emphasis on gun owndership in the UK and Japan is great."
Something shorted out in this line of thought? Also, you did notice the Cold War? Maybe a Wargames refresher is due; "the only way to win, is not to play".
"However, I live in a country where any random religious idiot can come to my door and harm me if he chooses? Well fuck that, I'll arm myself."
What? You can always have someone come to your door and harm you. Even the most dystopian Big Brother societies cannot truly prevent this.
"I would hope I'll never have to use it, but the fact that it's there gives me some comfort."
And it boils down to this. It has nothing to do with reality, but it's a nice crutch. Did you notice what I wrote originally about carrying on a culture of fear?
I'm a gun owning, liberal atheist who has been trained so as to know how to use his weapon. I don't take it lightly and it's not a toy. I also have never owned a piece of camouflage, read Soldier of Fortune magazine, given to the NRA, enjoyed a Charlton Heston movie nor attended a gun show. I don't "get off" on owning a gun. It is merely a tool. It's not some crazed thing. I haven't shot my pistol except for practice from the day I've owned it. I don't hunt (but I probably would some day... not with my pistol mind you).
I'm not going to apologize for it. I am a responsible owner and it is 100% lawful for me to own it.
Now back on topic. PZ, maybe you should get Greg Laden to come over and protect your house. If some crazed lunatic came to your house he could crush him with 1000's of blog posts.
There's no better time then now to buy a weapon
If the economy is tanking, wouldn't the prices go down more later?
I'm waiting for the fire sale.
I want an equalizer for the weak, old, or disabled to be able to use against those that would do them harm.
Where do you live, Tombstone, circa 1875? In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law.
All this macho posturing about guns only indicates to me that those who spout such rhetoric would dearly like to be in a situation in which they are called upon to shoot someone, preferably while sporting the curled lip and steely gaze of "Dirty Harry"-era Clint Eastwood.
Might I suggest the US Armed Forces? Be all you can be.
PZ, do you still have the message on your UMN account? It's possible that the mail server scrubs some of the originating information when a message gets forwarded. There's no originating IP in that header, although there should be.
"In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law."
And where is your rule of law when some psycho walks into a school or business and starts shooting people? About twenty corpses too late.
CJO, you made me laugh. :)
The comment about the US Armed Forces was well timed, considering the next article PZ posted about soldiers getting shafted upon returning home injured.
Xeno @ 134 As has happened on several occasions when guns are mentioned, all manner of personal and philosophical emotions come into play. I will not belabor this discussion beyond this as I would rather discourse on the threat of religion and not on psychological pro or cons of gun ownership. Just your first comment to my post at 129 suggest all too obvious your total distaste in gun ownership for any means. You seem to state that I and others of my persuasion take obvious delight in standing around in public brandishing our guns in a defensive or mocking manner to let the general public know that we are armed and ready for all sort of trouble, be it imagined or potential. Let me offer a simple scenario that I am sure you can comprehend. I have a legal pistol permit, an FID card, and carry a loaded 38 caliber on my waist when I leave or return to my home, because of an incident that almost proved disabling or worse to me and my wife. I keep it concealed when out in public and in no manner of speech or behavior reveal that I have a hand gun. I don't play or pose with it, ala a gunslinger, nor do I keep it in sight or mention it to any other persons who have no need or ken to know of my possession. One night I hear a person yelling outside, and see that they are being attacked by one or two males who may or may not have a weapon. Upon running out with my gun drawn, and without even having to utter a word of desist to the freaking criminals, they hightail as if running for their lives, and all this without firing a shot but just the mere visual chance of mortal retribution to their criminals lives. Would that be considered foolhardy by you, or just a random situation that lacks any substance and in no way supports brandishing a gun? Even if that same gun, by chance, should someday prevent you from being murdered or injured if I happened to come upon your scene of imminent danger? Or perhaps I knew you, or you even lived next door, and knowing your aversion to gun ownership, I declined to act on your behalf and let you suffer the inequities of force against prejuidice to the ambivalent gun? I am definitely sure you would want me to save your life despite by just brandishing my gun. Ironic how blatant reality always triumps over petty idiosyncrasies. And to allude that my opinions on gun ownership have any relation to my attacks on faulty creationist unreason is not only disingenuous on your part, but atrociously small minded. Shame on you. This will be my last comment on this subject; you may comment further, but without any respnse from me.
Rystefn @ #187
"And where is your rule of law when some psycho walks into a school or business and starts shooting people? About twenty corpses too late."
Really? Really? I thought gun advocates had given up on thin soundbytes like this.
How likely is this scenario? Getting hit by lightning-level?
#185 "Where do you live, Tombstone, circa 1875? In this society, I believe we employ as "an equalizer" a quaint concept known as rule of law.
All this macho posturing about guns only indicates to me that those who spout such rhetoric would dearly like to be in a situation in which they are called upon to shoot someone, preferably while sporting the curled lip and steely gaze of "Dirty Harry"-era Clint Eastwood.
Might I suggest the US Armed Forces? Be all you can be."
Of course, the chances of me needing to ever use a firearm are incredibly low. The chances of me as a healthy young man having a serious medical problem or my house burning down are also very low. I still buy insurance though. Its not about the odds, it is about whats at stake. Might I ask where it is that you live where innocent people don't get robbed, beaten, raped, killed, or other terrible things done to them?
What have I said that you believe is macho posturing? That I think its possible that someday I might need a man with a gun and the police won't be there to fill the role soon enough? I also said that I might need a fire extinguisher one day. Do you also believe that I have some deeply rooted fantasy to make like I'm Kurt Russel in backdraft?
I don't know what the military has to do with anything either. I clearly stated that I'm not at all eager for violence, but I recognize that it might come looking for me one day even if I would prefer it not.
So...
The Dark Knight was awesome, right?
Nope, scratch that. I just sent a message to myself with a new gmail account and it doesn't retain originating IP info. Stupid.
"How likely is this scenario? Getting hit by lightning-level?"
...and yet, I'm fairly certain you have a lightning rod on your home and place of business. It is unlikely, but it DOES happen. People DO die from it. A reasonable person takes measures to minimize the risk to themselves and their loved ones.
I do not currently have a gun in the house, gave it to one of my sons when I was suicidal after my wife's death. It was not the gun per se, I also got rid of any types of sleeping pills, poisons and alcohol for a long time. I am better now. I will probably buy a shotgun in the near future for home defense. Right now I have a actual spiked mace for home defense, it was a gift - long story.
I live in the US, in an area where guns are legal. If you do not want a gun, do not own one. Guns seem magical to some of the posters here, an actual evil item. I do not agree, I see them as tools. I do believe in training prior to purchasing a fire arm and complete registration. I will take the shotgun to the range to learn to use it, if and when I buy one, and that will probably and hopefully be the last time it will be used. I have four granddaughters, if they come to stay with me, the gun will be locked away.
I am fully trained in shooting and the legal aspects of self defense. I have also shot for real in the military and carried guns overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan as a civilian security officer. Guns neither fascinate nor scare me.
If you wish to dislike me for my stance on this issue, feel free.
The first move of any tyrannical despot is to disarm the people.
Yeah, 'cos everybody knows that Saddam Hussein took all the guns from his subjects.
My sentiments as well fellow Charlestonian.
Holbach @ #189
"You seem to state that I and others of my persuasion take obvious delight in standing around in public brandishing our guns in a defensive or mocking manner"
Where? Where do you get this idea? Haven't I made fairly clear posts regarding my own experiences with armed people?
"Let me offer a simple scenario that I am sure you can comprehend."
Yes, really hammer down that "you're stupid" insult.
"Would that be considered foolhardy by you, or just a random situation that lacks any substance and in no way supports brandishing a gun?"
I have been in similar situations myself. I have not used a weapon in any of them. They all resolved peacefully, except for one instance where punches were exchanged.
What conclusions are we to draw here? Obviously, from your account, one personal anecdote is plenty of evidence (even though I might add that your story failed to point out the necessity of the weapon in that situation). I submit that we are to learn from this that most conflicts can be resolved peacefully.
How about that?
"Ironic how blatant reality always triumps over petty idiosyncrasies."
Obvious how this didn't really pan out the way you'd hoped.
"blah blah.. knowing your aversion to gun ownership, I declined to act on your behalf and let you suffer the inequities of force against prejuidice to the ambivalent gun?"
Yeah, you would do that to prove a point, wouldn't you? Regardless of what scenarios we can dream up together, I think the issue is bigger than the both of us, and our personal experiences.
What I've tried to do in a couple of posts now, is to see how the "pro-gun" idea works among those who hold it. I can't say I find it very consistent.
"And to allude that my opinions on gun ownership have any relation to my attacks on faulty creationist unreason.."
Wait, what? I think I alluded previously to "pro-gun" rhetoric using the same logical fallacies as creationists, which I found strange given that anyone browsing here would surely be able to pick them out?
"Shame on you. This will be my last comment on this subject; you may comment further, but without any respnse from me."
Well, thank the Lord for small favours.
takes measures to minimize the risk to themselves and their loved ones.
...but didn't several people, just above, note that the statistics suggest that the way to minimize that risk is NOT to have a gun in the house?
Can you show us the work that indicates that having a gun in the house minimizes risk to self and family?
Keeping a gun in the house alway seemed to me to be one of those "makes sense on the surface" things that when actually analyzed, turns out to be the opposite.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, just read your #182, wish my post had been as well written as yours.
Oh, and thanks for the tip on here and your blog re Ted's Butcher shop, been looking for a good butcher. I am in Ladson, but run downtown quite often.
Pax Nabisco y'all
Ted's is awesome. Any strange cut or cured meat i want, they find. He supplies me with the pork belly for the bacon I make.
Good stuff.
"What I've tried to do in a couple of posts now, is to see how the "pro-gun" idea works among those who hold it. I can't say I find it very consistent."
Perhaps because different people are pro-gun ownership for different reasons?
Also, I'd like to point out that throwing punches wouldn't have worked so well for, say, an eighty-pound cripple. Are you perhaps opposed to guns for fear that someone less physically capable than you can thereby gain the power to resist you? I sincerely hope not. I am, however, honestly curious to know how you think a person is to resist the use of force by someone more physically capable than themselves without the use of a weapon. What weapon other than a gun can truly level that field?
If the probability of accidentally shooting yourself or someone else is larger than the probability of being harmed by an intruder, than it is not logical to own a gun. This will depend entirely on the expertise of the gun owner and where you live.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, now I am starving and have nothing in the house to satisfy my lusts. Looks like I will have to pop up to Gilligans for shrimp and hushpuppies. Ten minute drive, life is SO DAMN HARD. (laughing)
Ciao
Rystefn @ #194
"..and yet, I'm fairly certain you have a lightning rod on your home and place of business."
We have lightning rods on our houses.. to protect people from getting hit by lightning..? I thought it had something to do with conductive electrical wiring?
"A reasonable person takes measures to minimize the risk to themselves and their loved ones."
Indeed. I had a grandma who used to go sit in the car when a lightning storm passed, since she'd learned that the car was the safest place to be. She'd do this at all times, no matter what the hour, or the weather and ride out the entire storm.
Needless to say (?) she was severely overreacting due to fear.
The minimizing of the risk was not rational.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Just because something can happen, doesn't mean that it is likely, or that any means of protection is a rational way to deal with the possibility. Surely you do not wear a tinfoil hat and live in a bunker all day from fear of aliens and meteors?
Why not? It could happen!
are you perhaps opposed to guns for fear that someone less physically capable than you can thereby gain the power to resist you? I sincerely hope not.
oh, that was a total cheap shot.
for the person you just so insulted, I hope I'm not stepping on their toes when i say:
fuck you.
the fact that it's there gives me some comfort
Like http://www.comfortinheaven.com/
Xeno you're saying that moving to your car or living in a bunker are both the same level of effort as leaving a hangun on the nightstand or dropping one into my pocket? I spend far more time, money, and energy keeping myself and my home insured against the unlikely than I do by having a gun. Contrary to popular opinion, most gun owners don't spend hours a day fondling their guns, they simply take up a little space in the house just like the kitchen knives or space in my pockets like car keys and wallet.
Cover the floor by the windows and doors with crackers. He'll have to step on Jesus to get to you.
So, you DO go about waving around metal rods on the hilltop during the storm, then? The odds are still incredibly small of being struck, you know... Somehow I doubt it. Do wear a seat belt on a plane, and keep your tray table up, etc despite the very low probability of a crash? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home despite the low probability of a fire? Do you have life insurance despite the low probability of dying in the next thirty days? Is there a surge protector into which you plug your computer, despite the still low probability of a lightning strike?
Play roulette with your life however you like, but let's not condemn others for choosing otherwise, shall we?
Yeah what the fuck was that?
Rystefn @ #202
"Perhaps because different people are pro-gun ownership for different reasons?"
Clever. Do you think I might be referring to individuals reasoning not holding up?
"Are you perhaps opposed to guns for fear that someone less physically capable than you can thereby gain the power to resist you?"
Yes, that is exactly right. Because everything I've said so far suggests I'm a irrational brute who dominates his surroundings through force.
Also, I never said the situation was resolved through the fistfight. It was not. Both me and the other fellow were quite bruised and battered before we realized the stupidity of it all.
"I am, however, honestly curious to know how you think a person is to resist the use of force by someone more physically capable than themselves without the use of a weapon."
Again, you fall into the neverending escalation idea with this reasoning. If the guy is stronger than me, I need a gun to resist him. If the guy has a gun, I need two, or a shotgun, or an assault weapon - yeah, that'll solve it!
We come into contact with people who are physically stronger than us all the time (assuming you are not Mr Universe or a top-ranked UFC fighter). How do you solve most of those situations?
You can never ever escape the helplessness scenario. It can always be concocted one whereupon you find yourself the underdog. What then?
So, you DO go about waving around metal rods on the hilltop during the storm, then?
but aren't lightning rods supposed to minimize your risk?
you really should stop with this analogy, it's quite a poor one.
the rest also miss the point:
You fail to note that the only statistics on risk show INCREASED risk when a gun is in the home.
show your work otherwise, or stop trying to pretend this is all about minimizing risk.
Oh c'mon NOW, PZ- I come from a long line of Catholics that reserve their CRAZY just for family. Please target the fundaMENTALists...ACCURACY MAN. It's important..I know a ton of progressive Catholics who would be appalled.
Ichthyic, may I ask that you show your work as well? I have yet to personally see a study that shows what I call genuine increased risk from owning a gun. As I mentioned earlier Kellermann's work is popular but also complete rubbish. I would like to read what you believe to be solid evidence.
I am, however, honestly curious to know how you think a person is to resist the use of force by someone more physically capable than themselves without the use of a weapon.
Threatening to dial 911 works for me; it's called "civilization".
As I mentioned earlier Kellermann's work is popular but also complete rubbish.
what part of it?
the data?
the statistics?
show me exactly which parts of it are rubbish, and then we can move to the next one.
then, can you show me the studies supporting your position that aren't rubbish?
You speak of a culture of fear, so be it. But it's not irrational to take out some form of auto insurance. A gun is a bit of insurance against a hostile event. It's possible it may never help, but same with a seat belt on your car. OK, yes, my logic is a little cross today thanks ot jumping back on here every moment I have away from work, but going back to the auto insurance example. I highly doubt you have insurance expecting an accident. I don't drive in fear knowing at every turn, there's a car that might potentially harm me, but I'm glad to know that should that ever occur, I have insurance to help in that event. Similarly, I don't live in fear that at any moment a person, terrorist, religious idiot, or whatever may cause harm, but at the same time, it's good to have a little insurance in case it occurs. Will it work should that event occur? Who knows, but it's better to have a little more control over your own destiny should an event like that occur.
Going back to a previous post, I had mentioned that there are instances where my views would agree with many here. I wouldn't feel the need for a gun if I knew that it was less prevalent in society. All I would hope to arm myself with, in a less violent society, would be my grammatical and spelling errors, run on sentences, half completed thought processes, and of course, sharp wit. Seriously though, we have to take all of these things in context, and that's been my point through all of this. In context, if you can arm yourself, and train yourself to responsibly use a firearm in a society that doesn't have strict enforcement of such weapons, and you have the constitutional right to do so, then by all means, you should. In essence, it's just an insurance policy. I don't walk around every day dwelling on what might happen, I don't fear some ambiguous concepts and people the government colludes to perpetuate, but at the same time, I know that if I can increase my sense of security by even a minor amount, then I will. We're not talking about an imaginary sense that religion brings, but about actualities.
If the day came when all guns mysteriously disappeared, I wouldn't mourn for their loss, but ultimately, until guns are in the hands of only those who have the training and responsibility to handle them, we will continue to have these debates. I'm not a member of the NRA, I don't condone the ease with which weapons can be purchased, and I do think we need to toughen the laws and increase the fees. This will continue to be an endless debate, because ultimately, beyond just empty rhetoric and irrational emotions, we are all the mercy of an arms race (even if it's de-escalating). Although human society can be directive, and the arms race may de-escalate, certain processes have to be in place for such things to occur. At the moment, if all Americans were forced to give up their weapons, then it wouldn't necessarily be safer, because it would be like de-clawing a cat and letting it roam freely among feral cats. Guess who loses in such an environment? Now if you have an isolated city where all the cats have been declawed, then it wouldn't be a problem letting your cat roam around. Those declawed cats may walk around feeling self righteous for obvious reasons, and a few cats with claws every now and then will probably do little major harm, but you get enough cats with claws, and the declawed lose. The argument here is whether stripping all the house cats of claws will help reduce cat-on-cat claw violence. Thanks to the feral cat population, that would be a resounding no.
If you'll recall the relevant 1960's Bill Cosby routine, one smears Jello on the floor, so the intruder will slip on it and fall on his back. Well, if the intruder is a giant carnivorous chicken heart.
Soybomb @ #208
"Xeno you're saying that moving to your car or living in a bunker are both the same level of effort as leaving a hangun on the nightstand or dropping one into my pocket?"
No, but it sure sounds better from your point of view if I did.
You spend the rest of the post talking about this scenario as if it were true.
What I meant was that the same irrational fear emerges from the line of reasoning that was proposed. Owning a gun is necessary, because I might get attacked sometime. Well, you might get a meteor in your head too.
If you react by sealing yourself in a bunker, it would be pretty obvious you were irrational, and anyone could point to your line of reasoning and say "there's the problem".
I am wondering why the same line of reasoning justifies owning a lethal weapon. I am asking where the magical line is, that allows you to say that owning a gun to protect yourself against a rare possibility is better than sitting in a car during thunderstorms.
Rystefn @ #210
"So, you DO go about waving around metal rods on the hilltop during the storm, then? "
No. I don't go to Harlem with a sign that says "I hate niggers" to justify my need for a handgun, lest I be attacked by someone either.
I am assuming we are still on the "grossly misrepresenting the opposing sides views"-battle?
You'll note that my original example ties into what I tried to explain to Soybomb above.
"Play roulette with your life however you like, but let's not condemn others for choosing otherwise, shall we?"
Good point. Speaking of condemning others by playing with our lives, how about putting other peoples lives at risk, because I am afraid and need a handgun?
but aren't lightning rods supposed to minimize your risk?
A lightning rod has to be grounded; it's not a good idea if you're part of the path to ground.
you really should stop with this analogy, it's quite a poor one.
Once again an attack against the wrong argument.
It's possible it may never help, but same with a seat belt on your car.
oh?
the seat bels on your car were adjusted in design and construction MANY times because of results showing they actually COULD hurt you in various circumstances.
are you old enough to remember the time when there were no shoulder straps on seat belts?
sure, it's possible a gun might never help, but it's also possible that it might hurt you.
how do you balance those risks?
gut instinct?
Threatening to dial 911? Really? You honestly think "leave me alone or the cops will be here in ten or fifteen minutes" is going to accomplish anything?
No, I am not advocating an eternal power escalation. Robberies with rocket launchers don't work, as you blow up all the loot. If it ever goes to lasers, I might say citizens should go to lasers, but I'm really sure how a beam weapon is a more immediate threat than a bullet in a mugging/home invasion scenario, so it does seem to stop there on the personal protection front. Level field. None of this "might makes right" crap.
If you walked away from a fight shaking your head and wondering at your own stupidity, good for you, but if you think that's how most fistfights end, you're badly mistaken.
As to the bit about you fearing the field being leveled, that was nothing other than me pointing out how ridiculous assuming another's intentions and motivations is. So stop assuming the gun owner is trying to escalate anything. The criminals escalated it to guns a long time ago, I'd just like to be able to keep up, thank you.
A lightning rod has to be grounded; it's not a good idea if you're part of the path to ground.
no shit.
But it's not irrational to take out some form of auto insurance.
It's certainly irrational to take out flight insurance. The whole point is rational risk assessment.
Rystefn @ #223
"Threatening to dial 911? Really? You honestly think "leave me alone or the cops will be here in ten or fifteen minutes" is going to accomplish anything?"
Haven't several people already said this worked? Or at least that talking worked?
Why is our testimony suddenly not worth anything?
Or did you neglect to set up a scenario with an armed assailant prepared to kill at the blink of an eye again?
"Level field. None of this "might makes right" crap."
I don't think anyone has suggested "might makes right". In fact, I know I am suggesting that might usually makes you wrong. The whole point is whatever you mean by "level field".
It'll never happen.
Unless you are as ruthless as the criminals you encounter, unless you are willing to "kill at the blink of an eye" (because surely we are back in that very fictive scenario mentioned above), then you will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage. And if you are ready to kill then what the hell did society do wrong since you're legally armed?!
"So stop assuming the gun owner is trying to escalate anything."
Since when is intention the end result? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
no shit.
That's certainly what your suggestion was that waving a metal rod around minimizes your risk.
I was particularly amused by your recent tu quoque bullshit about my "poisoning the well", after you had argued that someone was committing a fallacy not because he actually had committed a fallacy, but because he was the sort of person who could be expected to commit that fallacy -- a case of poisoning the well if ever there was one. What an asshole you are. And I predict that your response will just confirm it.
Threatening to dial 911? Really? You honestly think "leave me alone or the cops will be here in ten or fifteen minutes" is going to accomplish anything?
What part of "works for me" are you too fucking stupid to understand? I got called a coward for threatening to call the police, and I responded the same as to you: "No, it's called civilization". The moron huffed and puffed but walked away.
"Good point. Speaking of condemning others by playing with our lives, how about putting other peoples lives at risk, because I am afraid and need a handgun?"
There is no life at risk from my weapon beyond the person foolish enough to attempt to force his way into my home. I am properly trained in the care and use of firearms, as is every person here. I am fully aware of the dangers of overpenetration, and have taken the necessary steps to prevent this from causing harm to my neighbors.
So, kindly explain to me how the risk to innocents from a responsible and qualified gun owner outweighs the risk to innocents from an armed criminal. I'd love to hear it.
If you walked away from a fight shaking your head and wondering at your own stupidity, good for you, but if you think that's how most fistfights end, you're badly mistaken.
Most fistfights don't end that way because they involve neandertal cretins like yourself who think that walking away from a physical fight is stupid.
Yes, rational risk assessment is exactly correct. To you, the risks may not outweigh the benefits of gun ownership but it depends on where you live. Do you live in a relatively safe, quiet, and comfortable environment? Then by all means, don't purchase a gun. If however, you live in an environment that may see such crimes, the benefits are well worth the risk. If I was a university professor who happened to be outspoken, and perhaps may cause some irrational loons to go off the deep end, I may just think about arming myself, even if I lived in a relatively quiet area.
I know the deterrant value of gun usage first hand, because I saw my father drive off an intruder with just the sound of his shot-gun loading. Now, perhaps, without that incident in my life, I may view things differently, and relating this is like talking about that distant cousin you know who won the lottery. In fact, I don't even have a gun at the moment because I live in a secured apartment in a relatively crime-free area of Honolulu (which also happens to have low gun ownership and low crimes committed by guns). However, if I perceived the risks to outweigh the cost of purchasing a gun for self protection, I would do so without hesitation. Technically I do have a registered shotgun, but it's at my parents' house because they'll probably need it more then I do. Go back to my original post where I tell PZ to get a gun. That may have started the vigor of this whole debate.
wait.. wait...
Am I reading this wrong? People are saying that someone pointed a gun at them and "I'm going to call 911" actually worked? really? If that's what you're honestly saying, I'm not going to call you a liar, but.... I can't think of a way to finish that sentence.
Also, if you own a gun for defense, and you're not prepared to use it to kill, you shouldn't have a gun. Period.
I'll just point out the problem with the seatbelt analogy: if your kids break into your car and play with the seatbelt it's unlikely anyone's going to die because of it.
Someone mentioned Bill Hicks; I'll remind you of the figure he quoted - 23 000 gun deaths. Not sure which year that's from, but I imagine Bill would have done his research. That's a lot of dead people - people with families and friends.
Logically, it can be argued that a gun is good for protection, but can anyone argue that there'd have been more deaths if guns were less prevalent?
Unfortunately, unless there's a way to get the existing guns off US streets it's a moot point, and since I don't live there I won't attempt to speculate on what I'd do if I did. I do hope that those of you who own guns never need to use them.
"I do hope that those of you who own guns never need to use them."
As do I. As do most of us. If I lived in a world where few people had guns, maybe I'd be more comfortable without one... I can't say. I don't live in that world, though.
the criminals escalated it to guns a long time ago
wait, are we still talking about keeping guns in the home?
Are home burglaries mostly done at gunpoint these days?
-or does your home get regularly invaded by armed thugs?
have you ever actually been attacked by someone with a gun?
if so, where? what were the circumstances? Do you have some personal experience to suggest that having a gun in your home has made you safer? Isn't it far more likely that someone would NOT want to alert you to their presence if they wish to burglarize your home?
If someone was sneaking around my house at night while I was asleep, I figure the intruder would have at least some chance of finding any gun I had ready to protect myself.
whatever the probability might be of home intrusion by a stranger (and that would vary depending on where you live, I suppose), I can also recall many, many stories of domestic dispute cases gone "bad".
Ever get in a serious fight with your wife or roommate?
would you want them to have access to a loaded gun if they were temporarily extremely angry at you, or perhaps just having a really bad day?
I'm sure you say, "Oh, that's unlikely - who shoots someone just because they're upset or angry?"
I wonder if Phil Hartman would have given you some commentary relevant to that, if he were still alive.
bottom line, for me at least, I've seen orders of magnitude more cases reported of domestic disputes involving guns, than I have of home invasions involving strangers and guns.
frankly, with some of the roommates I've had over the years, I would think lowering my risk of bodily harm would be best accomplished by NOT having any guns in the house that could be readily accessed.
but hey, that's just personal experience. We were talking about statistics, right?
we could look together and see whether or not there really are more cases involving domestic disputes and guns than there are home invasion and guns, yes?
Or would that not really answer the question for you personally as to what strategy would really minimize your personal risk?
Am I reading this wrong?
Yes, cretin.
but because he was the sort of person who could be expected to commit that fallacy -- a case of poisoning the well if ever there was one. What an asshole you are. And I predict that your response will just confirm it.
are you sure you want to waste your energy on this?
really?
you're too dishonest to take it back to the thread where it was raised, simply because you said you wouldn't, and choose to bring it here instead?
get the fuck over yourself.
seriously.
Let's review the fact that Rystefn is so incredibly stupid that he can't even recall what argument he was making a short while ago:
"So, kindly explain to me how the risk to innocents from a responsible and qualified gun owner outweighs the risk to innocents from an armed criminal. I'd love to hear it."
So now we're back from discussing gun ownership on a philosophical level, to arguing from an American point of view, to arguing from an individuals point of view, to arguing from a qualified gun owners point of view.
I can buy discussing this from an American point of view. But surely you realize that you just excluded a large group of people with your little rhetorical phrasing there?
Perhaps that group might be relevant in discussing the role of guns on society?
"I am properly trained in the care and use of firearms, as is every person here. I am fully aware of the dangers of overpenetration, and have taken the necessary steps to prevent this from causing harm to my neighbors."
I am thoroughly amused. What are these "necessary steps", pray tell? And is now the time to enlighten you that trained professionals, like policemen and military personnel, who have - dare I say - probably the best training in these things still make mistakes.
Why? Because the actual stress of a dangerous situation makes everyone prone to making them. Assuming that "the regular gun owner" would be more disciplined, trained and educated in a potentially lethal situation (lethal in that the person "defending" himself is armed, if nothing else), is laughable.
"There is no life at risk from my weapon beyond the person foolish enough to attempt to force his way into my home."
I don't know if this will hold up to your very high standards, but still:
Wikipedia, where we find "In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun."
It has an actual paper book reference and everything!
you're too dishonest
BWAHAHAHAHA! You're made of dishonest, asshole.
Yes, I have had a gun pointed at me, and yes, my own weapon takes the credit for me walking away from it. Yes, I have had a great number of arguments in my home, but no one in my home fails the "would I trust this person with a gun, even angry?" test. I have never yet pulled a weapon in anger. People who fail at basic gun safety are not allowed in my home. People who fail at basic anger management are also not allowed in my home.
Yes, a competent burglar would love to get in and out without ever being noticed. Many burglars are not competent, and the competent ones must be aware of the risk of an armed person in the building (otherwise, they aren't competent, are they?). What percentage of those respond to the risk by arming themselves? We don't know. We can't know. Burglaries, robberies, and other crimes go wrong, and when they do, sometimes people die. Given the option, I'd prefer it's the criminal in the body bag.
No one ever dying might be a nice dream, but the world just doesn't work that way. Honestly, I liken it to a nation having no armed forces because the chance of foreign invasion is pretty low. Yes, the odds are low, but the cost of failure is spectacularly high.
Rysefn @ #232
"Also, if you own a gun for defense, and you're not prepared to use it to kill, you shouldn't have a gun. Period."
I said in post #226
"Unless you are as ruthless as the criminals you encounter, unless you are willing to "kill at the blink of an eye" (because surely we are back in that very fictive scenario mentioned above), then you will ALWAYS be at a disadvantage. And if you are ready to kill then what the hell did society do wrong since you're legally armed?! "
I don't know if you caught this.
Your statement troubles me, for reasons that should be apparent. I guess I got my rhetorical question answered too.
Have you ever considered disabling an attacker? Or do you think we should "put it between the eyes"?
BWAHAHAHAHA! You're made of dishonest, asshole.
Oh?
as much as you are made of shit and piss you feel you must offload at every opportunity?
this is where you want to focus your energies?
so be it.
feel free to berate me with your endless repertoire of textbook logic you learned as a student.
wheee!
just know you aren't contributing anything to the topic at hand.
I wonder if that's what you do when you really DON'T have anything substantive to contribute to a discussion, but want to exercise all the effort you made to study logic and rhetoric?
for example, when you point out that rystefn apparently contradicted himself in #238, did you do that because you wanted to rub his nose in it, or because there was something to really learn from it relevant to the issue at hand?
what was the message supposed to be there?
I'm genuinely curious to hash out where people get their ideas that owning a gun is a good/bad thing, so if I don't immediately respond to your frothings, be aware it's because I wish to think about what other people are saying.
I have never yet said that I think everyone, or even a large number of people should own guns. I have said that I advocate a BATTERY of testing to insure that gun owners are qualified to maintain and use their weapons. I have said that owning one without those qualifications is irresponsible and dangerous.
As to truth machine - what have I said that contradicts the statement you quoted? Please point it out. Ad hominems are unbecoming.
Xeno, attempting to disable an attacker with a gun is a good way to get yourself killed. Thank you, but no. If you think it is an atrocity that I feel my life is worth more than the person from whom I am defending myself, that's your prerogative, but I feel very much that you are wrong, and that the vast majority of humanity would be atrocious by that definition.
Rystefn @ #244
Can you please have the courtesy to track who you are talking to and what you are responding to?
I try to.
Pepper spray.
Bulletproof vest. Remember, the other guy just might draw faster, just perhaps...
Xeno - it is getting ugly and confusing isn't it? I've tried to use quotes to show who and what I'm responding to, but it seems I've forgotten here and there. I'll try to work on that.
Yes, I have had a gun pointed at me, and yes, my own weapon takes the credit for me walking away from it.
where did that happen? Is this what you attribute most to your position on guns, or was your position the same before this event?
People who fail at basic anger management are also not allowed in my home.
really? How can you tell before it happens?
Say you do know for a specific individual...
Would you kick out your teenage son because of irrational anger issues?
your life must be very ordered and neat.
No one ever dying might be a nice dream, but the world just doesn't work that way.
neither does the idea of perfect anger management.
you don't consider yourself omniscient, right?
Rysefn @ #245
"Xeno, attempting to disable an attacker with a gun is a good way to get yourself killed. Thank you, but no."
What kind of superhumans are you battling? Seriously? They're all armed, stronger than anyone else, can take bullets to the limbs without flinching..
A significant part of the military training I received as part of having the duty to defend strategic resources (which I did actively, although with a very low threat level), was to warn the attacker repeatedly before even considering using lethal force, at which point we were to fire two warning shots after which we were to fire low, preferably to the legs.
This in scenarios involving unknown, possibly armed, assailants.
Granted, this exchange could be done very fast, if someone were to come running at you, but the aim was clear and the responsibility of being entrusted a loaded assault rifle dire.
"If you think it is an atrocity that I feel my life is worth more than the person from whom I am defending myself, that's your prerogative, but I feel very much that you are wrong, and that the vast majority of humanity would be atrocious by that definition."
I think it's actually disgusting that you would think yourself an educated and responsible gun owner, when your basic attitude is that of the very thing you fear.
Like I mentioned previously about having people on "my side" that I'd sooner duck from than the enemy, I would feel very unsafe - law abiding as I am - anywhere near you.
I have never yet said that I think everyone, or even a large number of people should own guns.
but...
If I lived in a world where few people had guns, maybe I'd be more comfortable without one... I can't say. I don't live in that world, though.
Unless you meant you literally live in a different world than the rest of us, doesn't this mean you basically think that guns are the way to minimize our risk?
Now I'm sure by "not everyone" you really meant a larger grouping than just "criminals", right?
so, are you narrowing your argument down to personal experience, and suggesting that you personally feel more comfortable having a gun around, or are you trying to say it's a good thing in general?
if the latter, why shouldn't "everyone" (except the "criminals" of course) own a gun?
David Marjanovic #247:
"Pepper spray."
You want to try to get within two feet of a guy with a gun, be my guest. Me? I'd rather not get shot down trying to close the distance.
"Remember, the other guy just might draw faster, just perhaps..."
This isn't the old west. The old west wasn't the old west. I'm not having a showdown at high noon here. I'm not wandering about trying to find someone in my house and hoping I outshoot the person. That's irresponsible, and a good way to get yourself killed.
Ichthyc #251:
"so, are you narrowing your argument down to personal experience, and suggesting that you personally feel more comfortable having a gun around, or are you trying to say it's a good thing in general?"
I am trying to say that the world is full of violent people. My particular section of this world contains a Hell of a lot of guns, many of which are in the hands of criminals. I personally feel that, as a responsible and competent person, I am better served by having access to a firearm should I need one. I also think that others would be better served in the same way IF they take the time to educate and train themselves. Random Joe Schmuck #3 with a gun is a danger to himself, and everyone around him. Yes, probably moreso than a criminal intent on violence, if for no other reason than that there are a lot more random idiots in the world than sadistic, violent criminals.
Yes, I am an advocate for gun ownership, but ONLY when it is accompanied by intelligence, training, education, personal responsibility, and a healthy respect for the weapon.
I don't know if this will hold up to your very high standards, but still:
Wikipedia, where we find "In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a gun."
I'm going to hazard a guess that when Rystefn looks at that same information, his mind instead focuses on the words I emphasized, and concludes, if I take his reasoning correctly, that it is suggesting that handguns are common, and lethal, so we should be buying handguns to protect ourselves.
Is that about right?
if not, could Rystefn point out where I missed?
I think this is going to be one of those agree to disagree moments. I know I advocated gun protection earlier, but I'm kind of torn both ways, honestly.
I'm not having a showdown at high noon here.
how would you describe the encounter you related earlier, where you drove off a gunman by using your gun.
did he not "have the drop" on you?
what exactly happened?
The benefits of car ownership and operation outweigh the risks involved in a way that is concretely measurable on a daily basis. I can see that, when I have successfully driven my car from point A to point B, I have received a benefit from its use. Despite traffic accidents being a very real risk, most drivers make (probably) thousands of A to B trips without incident. This indicates that the benefit will most likely outweigh the risk (which is mitigated by being a skilled, competent driver).
Guns, on the other hand, provide a much more abstract benefit (those used for protection, at least) in that they only might be used in a very rare circumstance. Each day that passes with that gun at the ready cannot be described as a day that the gun provided concrete, measurable benefit in the same way that the car provided. Unless, that is, one is prepared to assume that their life and/or property is materially in danger of gun-preventable violence every single day, which I hope we can all agree is unreasonable and probably indicative of paranoia. Meanwhile, the gun's presence has provided the full inherent level of daily risk! So the simple calculus seems to be that the risk outweighs the benefit. It's admittedly blurry, though, and gun risks are also mitigated by owners being skilled and competent.
I also feel like pointing out that attempts to compare firearms' potential harmfulness to that of automobiles, or their risk-minimizing efficacy to that of seat belts (or insurance policies, or lighting rods) are missing or ignoring the fact that, among these things, guns are uniquely purposeless without their ability to cause harm. Anyone who suggests that the mere presence of a gun is a sufficient deterrent to crime is only making the case for carrying things that look like guns (Holbach?)!
Yes, I am an advocate for gun ownership, but ONLY when it is accompanied by intelligence, training, education, personal responsibility, and a healthy respect for the weapon.
so then you ARE saying that everyone should own a gun, so long as there is some training involved, and the person is above average intelligence?
don't the mentally handicapped get to protect themselves with a gun, too?
what if someone successfully defends themselves from attack with a gun they own, but have never received any training on using the weapon?
would you criticize the person for using a gun to defend themselves?
be honest.
the point I'm kinda dancing around here, is that you seem to be using rationalizations generated from your own personal experience, and extending them much further than is warranted.
am I wrong?
Ichthyic you still aren't showing your work so thats obviously going to make it hard for me to tell you specifically what I disagree with. I'll just throw some Kellermann stuff and we'll see what sticks I suppose. I would like it if you could cite something in particular though.
There are pages and pages of critiques of kellermann's general body of work out there. If you truly have an intellectual interest in this I'd urge you to find them and read them and not rely on the tiny bit of info I'm willing to try to spoon feed here.
That said, yes methodology is a big factor. Kellermann's data set is only partially available and missing some important bits of vital information like if the gun used to kill the homicide victim was stored in the victims home. It factors in suicide as a reason to not have a gun as though the gun is what makes a suicidal person take action. The study fails to take into account the type of people with guns in their home. The famous 34% number drops to 12.6% when home with prior arrests are excluded. It drops to 7% if we exclude homes with prior arrests, drug use, and violent histories. Shouldn't I be more interested in what happens to people like me than the junkie out of jail?
In a later study by Kellermann he even discredits himself (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267 ) by stating that origin of the gun in the home shooting is from the home 14.2% of the time.
Anyway I could go on for pages, but look for yourself, I'm sure you'll find it all from other far more credible sources than some guy on the internet. I'd suggest you start with:
The New England Journal of Medicine -- February 3, 1994 -- Volume 330, Number 5 - letters to the editor
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home": Kates, Schafer, et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?. TN Law Review 1994
Kleck, Gary, What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.
Rafferty, Ann P. et. al. "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey." Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3 p282(7).
Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 2001.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30225.html is easily available and has some decent references
Anyway you get the idea. I'll leave it up to you to determine if Kellermann's work is good or not. I just hope you're interested in finding the truth more than finding a way to show your position to be right.
Now onto what you're asking for. We can quantify the number of people killed in firearms accidents in the home and find its a very low number. How do we compare that to the number of crimes stopped by someone with a gun in the home? Studies show us that defensive gun uses seldom result in shots being fired. The attacker seems to usually stop when a gun is produced. These instances are either not reported at all or if reported are not flagged in any meaningful way to let us know that a gun was involved assuming that person reporting the incident mentions the gun. The police report will be reported as attempted robbery, not attempted robbery stopped with a gun.
Some researchers have taken into account those challenges and come up with their own methodology to produce some numbers.
Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1. says that there are about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.
US Dept. of Justice, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, 1994 puts it at 1.5 million a year.
Southwick Jr., Lawrence. "GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE." St. Louis University Public Law Review. vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217 said its at least 400k.
Whats the truth? I have no idea. I do know that I haven't seen any quality evidence that having a gun in the home is a danger for myself. I know that the number of gun accidents a year no where approaches any of the numbers for defensive gun uses that I belive to be credible studies. Arrive at your own conclusion, just be sure you're putting a little work and not trusting your gut.
So you asked us to show our work so to speak. I believe I showed you a great deal of work that supports my position. Are you now willing to do what you asked of us and show what work you believe supports yours?
All of us rational people are torn between two points of view. Just because I fall on the side of gun ownership does not mean I don't understand the other point of view. In fact, I respect it, but I will just have to disagree because ultimately deep down, the way I look at things within context is different then the way anybody does, and visa versa. Did all this start because I told PZ to get a gun? Well, this debate can continue, but I would like to know that PZ has a gun, and is trained and responsible with one if he needs it in self defense.
Nobody here is pretending to be Charleton Heston, so let's keep things in perspective and context. Leave the name calling to those religious fuckers, and let's at least have a well thought out reasonable debate. I know at some point I called someone self-righteous, so don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm completely innocent, but let's keep this thread from degenerating into a bunch of grunting troglodytes arguing over the best method of protection (the stick or the rock). I would imagine, if I lived in an area peppered with other chimps who were hell bent on using the rocks for weapons, I might not do so well with a stick. However, if I armed myself with a rock, maybe it might be enough of a threat to prevent my property or life from being taken. Of course, I run the risk of dropping the rock on my foot, or misthrowing it on someone I cared for, or even further escalating the conflict, but if I was properly trained for rock throwing, I might not mind the risks. As for those troops with sticks, I certainly hope their neighbors also have sticks and not these large rocks.
Icthyic #254:
"I'm going to hazard a guess that when Rystefn looks at that same information, his mind instead focuses on the words I emphasized, and concludes, if I take his reasoning correctly, that it is suggesting that handguns are common, and lethal, so we should be buying handguns to protect ourselves."
Actually, my mind didn't really focus specifically anywhere until people started putting things in bold. Regardless, handguns are common in some places, and less so elsewhere. That's not so much the part that worries me. The part that concerns me is that any firearm is very lethal and that here, pretty much anyone can get one.
If someone is in my home without my permission, there is a very real chance that person would never purposely harm another human being physically. There is also a very real chance that person is perfectly willing to kill me and anyone else they come across in pursuit of whatever purpose brought him here. If you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your family on giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt, that's your call. In the moment, I may very well choose the same... but I'd rather have the option of defense if it proves necessary.
As I said before, I wouldn't go hunting through the house or any of that idiot Rambo crap. I don't want any more blood spilled than must be, but if someone must die in such a situation, I'd rather it not be me, and more than that, I'd rather it not be one of my loved ones.
http://www.reasons.org/
There is a Greg Moore who is a prominent member of RTB (Reasons to Believe). See author's name of the article on the left side of the page. I have no clue if it is the same person since the name is so very common, but who knows?
__________________________________
"Bio
Greg Moore is a graduate of Washington State University and works as the Water Conservation Manager for the city of Everett. A certified RTB apologist since 2000, Greg was among the founding members of the Seattle chapter, which he now serves as president. His monthly newsletters may be accessed under the "chapters" button."
________________________
Well, talk about getting the cold shoulder. :(
Since no-one seems to be engaging me, I'll take this respite to go watch a movie with lots of guns and explosions.
Unless, that is, one is prepared to assume that their life and/or property is materially in danger of gun-preventable violence every single day, which I hope we can all agree is unreasonable and probably indicative of paranoia.
evidently, that's exactly how some feel about it:
I am trying to say that the world is full of violent people. My particular section of this world contains a Hell of a lot of guns, many of which are in the hands of criminals.
are we prepared to conclude Rystefn is paranoid? Hell, I dunno, maybe he lives in the middle of gang central, and every person under the age of 80 is involved in regular drive-by shootings.
of course, if that were the case, would we then conclude this a "representative sample" to base larger decisions on gun ownership on?
My feeling is that no, that wouldn't be such a good idea.
I guess I'm concluding that there might indeed, at a particular time and place, be a good reason to tote a gun around, or have one in your house. That certainly doesn't necessary extrapolate smoothly to it being a good idea for everyone.
This is why the SCOTUS decision was wrong. It overrode the ability to input local information into whether it really minimizes risk to own and carry a firearm. It severely weakened individual localities/states abilities to take their local experiences into account, and pass laws accordingly.
What might be good for the part of town Rystefn lives in, might not be the best for even a different part of the same town. I know my personal experience suggests a higher risk of bodily harm from keeping a gun in my home at all.
that said, who is to say that Rystefn isn't caught in a kind of catch-22? The more people that are perceived to have guns, the more people start to think they need guns to protect themselves from the people who already have them.
How much of that, in and of itself I wonder, feeds American's thirst for firearms?
aside from taking EVERYONE'S guns away (and completely destroying access for all), how would one stop such a cycle?
Rystefn, you imply you would be happy to dump the guns if it were "a different world".
Were you being honest?
if someone could show that you were the only one in your entire town that owned a gun, would you then give it up?
Since no-one seems to be engaging me
what, what?
I'm using the info. you posted from wiki.
jump on in.
Ichthyic #246
"This is why the SCOTUS decision was wrong. It overrode the ability to input local information into whether it really minimizes risk to own and carry a firearm. It severely weakened individual localities/states abilities to take their local experiences into account, and pass laws accordingly."
The scotus decision was right if the 2nd amendment says what the court decided it says. If you disagree with the 2nd amendment that you need to push for legislation to change it, not rely on creative judicial interpretation to get there.
"if someone could show that you were the only one in your entire town that owned a gun, would you then give it up?"
This seems to be a recurring logical problem. You don't need a gun to hurt me. How am I going to protect myself from those that wish to do me harm with things other than guns?
The part that concerns me is that any firearm is very lethal and that here, pretty much anyone can get one.
wait, so the part that concerns you is the availability of guns?
If you are willing to gamble the lives of yourself and your family on giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt, that's your call.
but that's just it, do you really KNOW what your actual risk is?
or are you just assuming it based on fear of "criminals" vs. people you "trust"?
You don't need a gun to hurt me. How am I going to protect myself from those that wish to do me harm with things other than guns?
umm, with things other than guns, perhaps? or running?
as Rstefyn noted:
You want to try to get within two feet of a guy with a gun, be my guest. Me? I'd rather not get shot down trying to close the distance.
seems to me the other side of that is that if your assailant DOESN'T have a gun, you have several more options available.
IIRC, that worked in the UK for a long, long time, (some issues arising fairly recently?).
The scotus decision was right if the 2nd amendment says what the court decided it says. If you disagree with the 2nd amendment that you need to push for legislation to change it, not rely on creative judicial interpretation to get there.
wow. uh the point is that it took creative interpretation to get where SCOTUS just "got", hence why it took them so bloody long to get "there".
I suppose you ignored the dissenting opinions in the case?
Typical Fascist Liberal generalization. A few idiot Catholics must mean ALL of them wish to visit Mr. Paul Myers of Morris, Minnesota.
I doubt it greatly.
Typical IDIOT comment.
It just takes one.
The county that I live in here in Oregon has pretty strict rules on licensing concealed weapons permits. I had to present tons of ID, be photographed and finger printed by the sheriff's department at the county court house, pay for an FBI background check (goodbye privacy), and file copies of either a military DD214 (I think that's correct) form or a passing grade certificate from a certified gun safety course. Maybe a shift soapbox will have the same effect. :)
STOP ARGUING ABOUT GUNS AND START INVESTIGATING GREG MOORE!!!
Do something productive.
google keywords like PZ Meyers, Greg Moore, crackers, Eucharist, etc...and try to find a link between the two. Nut Jobs have a tendency to spout nonsense in many places, so this guy has probably bitched about PZ on a newsgroup someplace. Find info about him and link it to the email address hr sent the threats from and charges can be pressed.
#14, #99: What's with the Koran fascination/obsession? We all know that third-world dirty diaper-wearing bloody thirsty Muslims are crackheads.
How about keeping the focus on civilized, well-fed, well-read, educated, worldly-wise gentle(wo)menly folks living in the first world, the first country, the greatest nation etc.
Xeno #250: "What kind of superhumans are you battling?" The kind who can still use their hands after being shot in the leg. In short - most people. When I was in the military, they taught us to shoot at center mass, minimizing the risk of of missing completely when the lives of my fellow soldiers were on the line. Let's not even start on drugged-up wackos, admittedly relatively low in numbers, but not remotely like nonexistent.
"I think it's actually disgusting that you would think yourself an educated and responsible gun owner, when your basic attitude is that of the very thing you fear." My basic attitude is that it's ok to kill people in the pursuit of stealing from them? Sorry, but I can't fathom how you came to that conclusion.
Icthyic #256: "how would you describe the encounter you related earlier, where you drove off a gunman by using your gun." Honestly, I'd rather not describe it at all. The experience was quite traumatic, and I would vastly prefer that it had been a case of driving someone off.
Icthyic #258: "so then you ARE saying that everyone should own a gun, so long as there is some training involved, and the person is above average intelligence?" No, I am saying that everyone who desires to won a gun should be allowed to so long as there is a real amount of training involved, and a verification of said training to weed out incompetents and stupid people. Like we should have for vehicle operation, only not a joke.
"don't the mentally handicapped get to protect themselves with a gun, too?" How do you define handicapped? If the person is mentally capable of understanding the maintenance, operation, and consequences, then absolutely.
"what if someone successfully defends themselves from attack with a gun they own, but have never received any training on using the weapon?
would you criticize the person for using a gun to defend themselves?" I would criticize the person for not training themselves with the weapon they owned, it's irresponsible and dangerous. It may have worked out in this case, but it was good luck, not good policy.
"am I wrong?" I think so, yes... unless you can give me some sort of valid reason why a person with no history of violence and a demonstrated competency with a tool AND a thorough understanding of proper safety precautions should NOT be allowed to own it.
#264: "are we prepared to conclude Rystefn is paranoid? Hell, I dunno, maybe he lives in the middle of gang central, and every person under the age of 80 is involved in regular drive-by shootings." Hyperbole much? Or am I to conclude that you live in happy-cloud land where no one ever hurts anyone for any reason and violence is a myth that only exists in fairy tales?
"that said, who is to say that Rystefn isn't caught in a kind of catch-22? The more people that are perceived to have guns, the more people start to think they need guns to protect themselves from the people who already have them." Isn't that an ugly truth? A society-wide overhaul would be nice, but in the meantime, I'll take what I feel are quite reasonable steps to protect myself and the people I care about.
"Rystefn, you imply you would be happy to dump the guns if it were "a different world".
Were you being honest?
if someone could show that you were the only one in your entire town that owned a gun, would you then give it up?" Would I give it up completely? Unlikely. Would I lock it away, store it outside of my home, and only take it out for target shooting? Absolutely. So long as the facility where it is stored is not a government facility, and I had a few other assurances on the whole Second Amendment front.
Please, don't misunderstand me - I abhor violence. I simply abhor the idea of myself or my loved ones being killed/raped/etc by a criminal more. I abhor the government no longer feeling accountable to the people most of all.
I love how this turned into a gun control debate.
The only thing I can say is it's sad that people who advocate for first amendment rights, freedom of religion (or from it), etc will completely ignore the second amendment.
If you truly believe in the constitution and what it stands for, you can't just pick and choose which parts of it you like.
I've never why people who are very scared for their own safety opt for the gun route, rather than a non-lethal weapon such as mace, tasers, etc. If I ever lived in a country where guns were popular (which I never have, thankfully), and I was in real, clear danger of getting attacked, I would opt for something that would mean I didn't have to kill people.
Is there a reason people choose guns?
Crap! SWIFT soap box.
Cary #276 I could not disagree with you more. The constitution has built into it methods for changing what it says. this is because is was written with the knowledge that the world changes, and the Constitution could only serve us by being able to change as well. If there's a part of it you dislike, you damned well had better stand up and say so. That, my friend, is a big part of what the first amendment is about: the ability of the people to freely criticize the parts of the law and the government we disagree with.
If you truly believe in the constitution and what it stands for, you HAVE to pick and choose the parts of it you like.
If you're being sarcastic, it isn't funny.
Rystefn, on what continent are you where you live in constant fear of paramilitary thieves breaking into your home and pumping you full of lead? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it's anywhere that actually exists.
I shall call it Jack Bauer-land, because your irrational fears and violence-gasms from living there so long remind me of Fox's torture-porn serial.
Mrs. Bastardly #277: 'Is there a reason people choose guns?" Because getting within arm's reach to use mace, tasers, etc of a person with a gun is a hazardous undertaking with fairly low survivability. Getting shot while closing the distance gets you nothing but shot.
Ichthyic @ #268 "umm, with things other than guns, perhaps? or running?"
So I'm under obligation to make the fight fair if someone attacks me? Instead of keeping a safe distance away from a guy with a bat or knife I need to get my own bat or knife? That reads like you're more concerned about how the attacker makes out than the victim.
Running will certainly get most people out of most situations, but it doesn't work all the time. How does the woman run away from a battering ex kicking in her apartment door? How does the older or disabled person run away? How do I run away from people who are faster than me or have me cornered with multiple people? The list goes on. You won't always be able to run away and you should be free to use the most effective tool for self defense against your attacker.
And of course please don't miss my earlier post to you at #259
stogoe #281: "Rystefn, on what continent are you where you live in constant fear of paramilitary thieves breaking into your home and pumping you full of lead? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it's anywhere that actually exists.
I shall call it Jack Bauer-land, because your irrational fears and violence-gasms from living there so long remind me of Fox's torture-porn serial."
I can only shake my head and wonder where you learned to read. Paramilitary thieves? Violence-gasms? What in the universe have I ever said to make you think these things? Have you played so much GTA that you can't think in rational terms anymore? See what I did there? See how it made no sense at all? That's how you sound to the rational, calm, literate people of the world.... So how about we take a deep breath, count to ten, and then go back and reread, separating the words on the screen from the flashing images in our own heads, yeah?
#277:
First off, I am disheartened that you are thankful that you have never lived in America. For all of the shortfalls that the current power structure has brought our country, I really do believe in the concept of my country, and what the forefathers who created it believed in.
I am sure, in fact positive, that there are many problems in the country that you currently reside and those you have lived in. No country is perfect.
Now, in response to your question:
There are in fact many people here in the US who opt for mace or tasers for personal protection. However, these options are NOT foolproof methods of repelling an attacker. For example, if an attacker, mugger, what have you may be ever so slightly be on the edge of becoming homicidal, a spray of mace to their face may only serve to enrage them further. In fact, many people in certain lines of work (security, military, police, etc) actually go through training to learn to overcome the effects of mace/pepper spray.
Tasers are a one shot deal. If you don't hit your attacker, that's it. They are practical for police who can quickly draw their gun-shaped taser out of a holster. I don't really consider them entirely practical for personal protection.
Now, as for why I would choose a gun? Because if I feel my life is being threatened, I'm not going to take any chances. I want the attacker stopped and I want them stopped now. The ONLY way to ensure that is by seriously wounding or disabling them. A taser, stun gun, mace, do not ensure that.
Now, of course if you could not handle the idea of killing someone for your own protection emotionally, then a firearm is obviously not for you. However, not everyone shares these feelings.
Answer your question?
I know the "defense against tyranny" argument is several posts up, but I've got to say that it really scares the shit out of me. I grew up in Michigan during the height of the Michigan Militia. This was an unmentionably large organization here, formed as a reaction to the "tyranny" of the Clinton administration, and every last one its members was an ultra-right wing wackaloon. They trained weekly in case the FBI/the UN/the Illuminati/Clinton himself came to take their guns away.
After Bush's election... they pretty much disbanded, happy with their government. 9/11 managed to boost their membership a bit, but they died out again pretty quick. Foreign wars of choice, wiretapping, torture... not a peep. (But an Obama administration... there's already a "10 weeks between the election and the swearing in--write us your 10-week plan in case the worst happens" notice on their website.)
I don't know. It's hard to convey my thoughts on this, but I have the distinct feeling that if fascism were to come to America, those who keep guns specifically as a defense against tyranny are most likely to be the brownshirts, not the partisans. The fact that they're better equipped to fight civilians than a modern army just reinforces this feeling.
Hyperbole much?
Just to be clear, I was extrapolating the point in AGREEMENT with you. consider it a case of "You're not paranoid if they really are after you". I don't know what the actual circumstances of your particular community is, only what you tell us.
Would you prefer I not accept your account that "your world" is a dangerous one? We are discussing ways of rationally assessing risk, after all. If you want to say you base your assessment of risk on how dangerous your particular environment is, that's fair I think. Or were you the one who was originally extrapolating on just how dangerous it really is?
I'll think about the rest of what you said and come back later.
NonWonderDog, is that really a valid reason for sane, rational people to disarm themselves?
#279:
Rystefn, let me clarify.
I should have elaborated and been more clear. Because I agree with you.
What I meant was, you can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution apply to you at any given time. Of course through the amendment process we change the constitution, and that's a vital part of it. Of course our country is based on the idea of free speech, criticizing our laws and constitution, etc... However, our government CANNOT take away freedoms explicitly granted to us without changing the constitution.
I guess my point is, to be clearer, if you don't like people owning guns, stand up and advocate for the repeal of the second amendment.
I'm wondering if I'm the only person on this thread who has ever actually had to defend their life from someone attacking them with a lethal weapon (barring the military)?
Guns escalate any situation. It's really that simple. Everyone goes on high alert, with an itchy trigger finger, and there are no do-overs. The presence of one gun in an altercation makes it significantly more likely that there will be injuries or death. More than one gun, it's pretty much a guarantee.
Almost everyone in the U.S. who goes on and on about having to defend themselves from some imagined bogeyman breaking into their home in the middle of the night is:
- at least 5'11";
- at least 200 lbs;
- male;
- a dog owner (usually several); and
- lives in a suburban or rural area far removed from significant violent crime activity.
You know who isn't generally represented in those precious second amendment arguments? Women like me who live in iffy neighborhoods in a city. We're the ones most at risk. But we're smart enough to realize that pulling a gun on an attacker in the majority of cases isn't defense: it's suicide.
What in the universe have I ever said to make you think these things?
he's challenging your description of the dangerous world you live in.
You've mentioned it several times.
seems pretty clear to me.
maybe you should be clearer about the actual dangers you and yours face in your community?
that way people wouldn't even be considering paranoia.
fair enough?
I'm wondering if I'm the only person on this thread who has ever actually had to defend their life from someone attacking them with a lethal weapon (barring the military)?
you haven't been reading the posts from Rystefn?
he says he was attacked and a gun saved him, or something to that effect...
#290:
If you pull a gun in self defense, you SHOULD be basically ready to pull the trigger. Maybe I'm off, but in all the CCW training I've ever heard of they teach you that if you are drawing your weapon it is because you are imminently ready to kill the person who you are aiming it at.
Guns are NOT deterrent devices. You don't pull a gun to scare an attacker away. If you have ever had training from someone who has said to pull a gun to scare someone away, they are a moron.
Of course pulling the gun escalates the situation. That's why you don't draw your firearm until you are sure that your attacker will definitely harm you and your only option to prevent this is to shoot your attacker.
Icthyic - The actual dangers I've listed off more than once? The armed burglar/mugger/rapist? The drugged-up version of the same? When I described "my world," I wasn't referring to some imaginary action-flick world. I was referring to the fact that I live in the real world, where crime happens, and the criminals do kill people.
Yes, people are trying to claim I'm pretending it's more common than it is. They are wrong. I am claiming nothing more than that it happens. Other people claim that owning a gun is intrinsically a higher risk. So is owning a knife. So is owning a gas heater. So is pumping electricity through your house. You want to live without risk? Good luck. It can't be done. Most of the risk in having a gun in the home is from carelessness and incompetency. The blame is not on the gun. The blame is on the careless and incompetent.
"he says he was attacked and a gun saved him, or something to that effect..."
I also said I was in the military.
I also said I was in the military.
so, while we're discussing the relative risks of gun ownership at home, you use an example from your military experience? Is that what you're implying by adding that bit?
wtf?
The actual dangers I've listed off more than once?
no. the actual dangers TO YOU, in YOUR community.
assuming a terrorist is coming over from Afghanistan to blow up your house isn't reasonable.
frankly, seeing how you've handled this issue so far, I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt, and instead am now leaning with the others in thinking you really are paranoid.
you'll have to justify to me just how dangerous your world really is now.
'cause like I said, I live in the US too, and my neck of the woods certainly doesn't inspire me to bear arms.
The blame is on the careless and incompetent.
oh, that is so much bullshit, and completely irrelevant to the discussion of relative risks we've been debating for the last several hours.
the conclusion appears clear to me:
you really AREN'T using any rational measure to assess your actual risks.
I'm done with you.
thanks.
Wait... So you honestly believe that evil resides in the gun, and it maliciously fired itself at people? Because that's the only way you can blame the weapon and not the person.
Then you call me irrational. Funny.
#288:
It's not, and while I think that carrying one for self-defense without a very specific reason is evidence of either extreme paranoia or sheer bloody-mindedness I'm not necessarily anti-gun. But I kind of think it's a valid reason to require strict firearm registration and to disarm the proto-fascist wackos. Apparently that makes me one, in their eyes.
Additionally, the threat of civil war between the militias and "sane, rational people" doesn't seem like the proper deterrent at all, and it really doesn't seem like something I want to be involved in (or have to cower from). I think you should find another line of argumentation here.
That should read "a threat," not "the threat." I don't think there is such a threat, but I think that arming yourself in response to the militias would constitute one.
NWD - I don't remotely think that there's a civil war brewing any time soon in this country, and I'd certainly rather see a revolution fought with ballots than bullets. I'm not against regulations and registrations and such. Hell, we do all that for cars, don't we? Dangerous as a car is, it's not exactly a weapon, is it? We're not so very far apart on that front, I think. Where we differ is, I suppose, what counts as a specific enough personal threat to warrant a firearm as defense. Ever hear a gunshot? If you weren't at a shooting range or out hunting, I'll call that a specific enough threat.
Just to be clear, before I'm misread (again) - I'm not saying that those right-wing semi-militants are the reason to arm yourself. I'm saying they are not a reason to disarm yourself.
The threat of criminal violence is a reason to arm yourself. The love of sport shooting is a reason to arm yourself. Hunting is a reason to arm yourself. The thin, thin chance that one day you might seriously feel the need to defend yourself from an oppressive government is a reason to arm yourself. The occasional dangerous wild animal is a reason to arm yourself. General principle in defense of the Second Amendment is a reason to arm yourself.
You want to live in a world without careless people? Good luck. It can't be done.
No, but access to a gun makes it far easier for careless people to accidentally (or maliciously) kill others. With a gun a careless person can kill someone with a twitch of a finger.
disclaimer: I have only lived primarily in Australia and Japan where gun violence is a total non-issue, I may well feel different if I knew all my careless neighbours carried guns.
The threat of criminal violence is a reason to arm yourself. The love of sport shooting is a reason to arm yourself. Hunting is a reason to arm yourself. The thin, thin chance that one day you might seriously feel the need to defend yourself from an oppressive government is a reason to arm yourself. The occasional dangerous wild animal is a reason to arm yourself. General principle in defense of the Second Amendment is a reason to arm yourself.
reasonable.
I think you should spend some time exploring the meaning of that word.
I may well feel different if I knew all my careless neighbours carried guns.
LOL
Reuben, I'm in Australia - and I wouldn't exactly say it's a 'non-issue' here, since there are still gun-related crimes happening. But yeah, it's certainly nothing like the US.
But it was at great cost that it became as regulated as it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
As a long time (25 years) martial artist, and a person who has actually been involved in more than a few fisticuffs, I'll make no excuses for learning to master my own mind and body. Controlled violence IS a valid expression of human behavior and should be prepared for like any other of life's potentialities.
Still, the USA would be a far better place without access to firearms, and I've advocated for doing away with them for quite some time. Besides varmint control and hunting, most of the excuses/justifications for gun ownership start with the premise the other guy might have one. All ensuing arguments that stem from this premise are just word games - including clinging to the Constitution as if it were an inerrant document, unchangeable, open only to interpretation.
Hunters could rent rifles, farmers and ranchers could lease them, and anyone else caught with a gun, especially a handgun, would face the death penalty. No excuses, no appeals, no concealed carry - anywhere - anytime - ever again.
And as for those that really think they might have to fight off their own government someday, may I suggest studying up on IED's and the tactics of 3G warfare?
Sorry Wowbagger maybe I over exaggerated, but I think compared to the US it really is a non-issue.
I remember the Port Arthur massacre well. It is interesting that in Australia the massacre led to public support for tighter gun control as opposed to calling for further gun ownership rights for self-defence.
But then, we Australians don't have a second amendment to call on. I understand that the situation in the US is very different and comparing it to other countries in not necessarily justified.
NonWonderDog @ 286:
That is my honest fear as well. This country is full of dumbasses drunk on false history, just itching for an excuse to pick up a gun and start firing because they think they're saving his country. The Secret Service will be in double overdrive for an Obama presidency, and I've already talked to a couple family members intending on voting for Obama, that don't expect him to live through his first term if he is elected. I really wish there weren't elements in this country that are so pathetically stupid, ignorant, insane, etc.
Frankly if I were president, I'd be cracking down on militia groups big time. Devote an entire wing of the FBI to 'em. They are nothing but angry powerless losers wanting to break away from the shooting range and use their precious firearms on something other than animals in forests. This country is definitely the worse for their existence.
Reuben,
Oh, I agree it's nothing like the US, and the constitutional aspects make their situation far more complicated. As well-meaning as their 'founding fathers' were I'm fairly sure they've have put it differently if they'd know what it meant for their 'offspring'.
Plus I think it's more of an issue in different parts of Australia - i.e. it's more significant in the country rather than the city, and I know there are politicians in those areas who do make references to it come election time. I remember the question of 'how will people on properties defend themselves if they don't have guns?' still being asked not all that long ago.
While I agree there are parts of Queensland that have fallen behind in terms of social and technological advancements, comparing it to the Wild West is a bit disingenuous...
XB #308: Death penalty for owning a gun? From someone who spent 25 years training in combat? Mildly hypocritical, is it not? How dare someone have the capacity to defeat you without an equal time training! Or do you also advocate the death penalty for learning eagle-claw and other lethal techniques as well?
Don't even get me started on the horrors of such an idea as "no appeals." I want you to understand me, no exaggeration, no hyperbole. That is the single most terrifying, most disgusting, most immoral, intolerable, as barbaric idea I have ever heard in my entire life. I cannot imagine a worse idea.
Ichthyic you asked the pro-gun side to show you their work and for me to show you my problems with Kellermann's work. I did you the courtesy of giving you a rather length reply at #259 including citing supporting work in JAMA, TN Law Review, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, a DoJ study, and St. Louis University Public Law Review among others.
You're replied to many other comments since then but I haven't seen you respond to this. Can you show your work as you asked others to do? It seems discourteous to lay down the challenge and then walk away if someone takes you up on it, not to mention somewhat intellectually barren.
Over the top idealism is funny, to me.
Death penalty? For being caught with a gun? Please tell me they were joking because that is one of the most retarded things ever said in one of these debates no matter which side you're on
Rystefn,
Right back at ya. I freely admit to being a really smart ape with a thin veneer of culture smeared on top. So your moral high ground is lost on me.
If someone were foolish enough to attack me, why should I not benefit from my training? And if I as a martial artist were to attack a smaller weaker women, would she not stand a better chance against me if there was no chance I could be armed with a gun? Wouldn't her tazer be far more of an equalizer to a knife or bare hands than it is to a gun?
Besides, long hours of training and meditation have a way of leeching the need for violence out of you. There's a reason you don't hear about crazed martial artists plying their mad kung-fu skilz on an unsuspecting populace.
Seems to me much of the horror of a 'no appeals' policy originates with the idea that somehow, someway, there's still a valid excuse to end up with a gun in your pocket. And I'm the barbarian!?
@313
OK, I just looked around for a critique Kleck's critique of Kellermann, and I found this at www.gunlawsuits.org/reform/ftcfiling.php
Once upon a time I worked in pubs and nightclubs. Many many years of punch-ups and brawls. As XeshaBlu said "There's a reason you don't hear about crazed martial artists plying their mad kung-fu skilz on an unsuspecting populace". Yes there is, most of the time it is because I'd see them put on their skinny little arses by blokes with less skilz but more street smarts.
I think that is why XeshaBlu made the death penalty comment too, been smacked in the gob once too often.
Here, I've read many rants and data points from the antigunners in the U.S., so I think it's best to say two things and give it a rest:
1) Fact: You simply are not going to take guns from Americans away. You've been trying for more than a century, and you have failed epically. The only way this is gonna happen is through a Constitutional amendment... and I don't see gun owners quietly going along with it, so just shut up, get with the program, and forget about it already. Don't want a gun? Fine, don't get one yourself. But respect the 200-year established right of people to get guns for them.
2) Fact: a victim, in the heat of the moment, with a gun, stands a monumentally better chance of escaping unhurt than another victim without a gun, whether by disuassion or by pulling the trigger. You can rave all you want about the strawmen exceptions, but the rule is overwhelmingly this: if you are going to be shot, you better have some way to respond. And statistically, at some point in your life, you will face this situation.
So why not be prepared? The only answer is: fear and cowardice.
Joe Bob @ #317
As stated there are numerous shortcomings with Kellermann's work. Picking apart Kleck still doesn't make the numbers being cited for guns in the household increasing danger for the occupants as correct or now.
Now anyway onto Kleck and defensive gun use. I don't think I tried to pass Kleck's own numbers on defensive gun use as being without question. When we talk NVCS though we come into some interesting problems, the worst being the victims being interviewed are not asked directly about using a gun. Some also suspect that people are likely to omit information about using guns because those doing the interviews make it clear that they are federal employees working for the DoJ and that full contact information is taken as well. Obviously the law enforcement element might scare some people off. Overall Kleck says that he feels the NCVS methodology works for victimization stats but not so well for defensive gun use stats. Again you be the judge. I'd encourage you to read Kleck's own criticisms of the NCVS numbers in Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1
Anyway lets throw all that out the window for a minute and assume that Kleck is wrong and the NCVS numbers of 65k defensive gun uses a year. This all started by someone wanting to run the odds on their safety and citing the famous Kellermann "43 times more likely" thing. Now we've got 65k defensive gun uses and 10k homicides by firearm according to the FBI's UCR. As I stated in my prior post too the number crunching of Kellermann's data has shown that a homeowner was only shot with a gun that was already in their home 7% of the time when people with violent and criminal histories were removed from the data set. I'm guessing most of us here don't have criminal records and should probably look at the numbers controlled to be most relevant to our situations.
So anyway the short of it is I'm still not seeing any solid defensive of the Kellermann numbers that are supposed to show it is more dangerous to have a gun in my home which was the original goal. Have you read the metholody behind the Kellermann study? Is it right to blame the gun for suicide? Is it right for the study to only count a result of a dead criminal as a defensive gun use and neglect gun uses with no shots fired or where the shooting wasn't fatal? Is it right for homes of people with criminal records and violent histories to be included in the numbers?
I'm very open to looking at numbers that show the real statistical danger of me keeping a firearm in the home but I just don't believe anyone with intellectual integrity can say that Kellermann is it.
Rudd-O had 2 points. Fair enough on point 1, there is no way yanks will give up their god given right to plug each other, or more correctly, the right for their children to plug each with daddy's guns.
But then Rudd-O said something about being shot at And statistically, at some point in your life, you will face this situation.
So why not be prepared? The only answer is: fear and cowardice.
Bullshit. Cite stats please.
Fear and cowardice for not wanting guns? Please. The only cowards here showing any fear are you guys arming yourselves to the teeth afraid of some straw man boogey man.
I'm 56 years old, living in a house well stocked with firearms and knives and other weapons, and in my long experience I've never found them necessary for self defense. Granted, I live in a rather nice neighborhood, but when I was much younger I lived in some difficult neighborhoods and never found arms useful there, either.
Your brain and your mouth are your first lines of defense. They're also the tools of choice for the police, who have to deal with difficult characters all the time. Sure, they have sticks and cuffs and spray and guns as backup, but most human intercourse is verbal.
I'll admit that my brother and I were playing with Glocks at a shooting range a few weeks ago, and that my reaction to the news that we Americans were no longer prohibited from buying assault rifles was "Woo hoo!" But I haven't bought a pistol or an AK-47, or, for that matter, a sword forged in Toledo, or a suit of armor.
For realistic threats we have insurance companies and suchlike.
"Statistically", one is more likely than not to eventually face a situation where one is "going to be shot"?
The idea that this assertion could be backed up with anything but the most flimsy and dishonest "statistics" is completely idiotic.
Having a gun on you for self-defense purposes only escalates the risks of being shot. Look, no math involved:
Mugger wants your money. You hand it to him and the mugger has two choices: kill you or take the money and run. You are completely at the mercy of this criminal in this situation.
In the situation where you have a gun, what are you going to do when there is already one being pointed at your head? Nothing. I've yet to meet a sane person with a concealed weapon that leaves it cocked with the safety off.
And is that criminal going to wait for you to pull your weapon out? Do you think you're the fastest draw in the west, willing to put it to the test? Sorry, but if that person finds out you have a gun then his options become: disarm you or disable you (with a close range shot to whatever body part will do the trick.)
Then even in the situation where you have time to draw your weapon and fire several shots, are you prepared for the adrenaline rush that such a confrontation entails? Of course all the macho men will say "Yes" but discharging a firearm can lead to stray bullets with even the best shots.
Then there's this misconception that your shot will do the Hollywood thing and knock the person back, killing him so efficiently that his final moments are reflections on what a tragic life he lead... Sorry Butch Cassidy, if you managed to get your gun up to level and shot before the crook returned fire you're likely not to hit anything so vital as to instantly kill the person or even knock them back. So now all you've managed to do was startle an adversary with their finger on the trigger of their own gun whose life is now in danger as well... Do you think his gut reaction is to surrender to someone who could for all intents and purposes finish him off even if he did surrender? Hell, I doubt that would even go through his mind. It would all be gut reaction anyway.
You want to have handguns in the home? By all means go right ahead. My only concern is how trigger happy civilians increase my likelihood of being shot... since if concealed carrying is not an effective deterrent against all crime it is an effective protagonist toward the assumption of the assailants that the moment they turn their back a non-carrying person may just shoot them dead. Hey better safe than sorry right?
If you ask me not carrying a gun is the sane approach to the risk of living.
Would read better as "Do you think his calculated response would be to surrender to an angry stranger with a gun? Hell, I doubt that anything would even go through his mind. It would be gut reaction all the way."
Sorry, I'm a perfectionist and it's late.
One of the things I like about being back in England, as opposed to the US, is that I know I can walk around the streets here and it's very unlikely that anyone I meet will be carrying a lethal weapon. Even knives, despite current tabloid headlines, are rare. In Arizona, on the other hand, I saw the person ahead of me in line at a cinema pull out a concealed-carry licence as proof of age. I tend to feel that it's morally wrong in a civilised society to walk around with a device whose sole function is to kill people.
I think the idead that the UK is a gun free place needs correcting. You may not be in possession of a Handgun. If you are it is 5 years inside. That was after the Dunblane school shooting: loner old male shoots infants class and their teacher.
You may still legally own non automatic rifles, shotguns etc. The banker in Chelsea who commited suicide by cop recently was shooting at people with legally held weapons. In a couple of weeks my perambulations in the Highlands are likely to be curtailed as the grouse shooting season starts. I have been high above Glen Doll and seen someone high on the other side of the glen culling deer (we killed our bears and wolves so we have to control deer numbers ourselves). However it is far higher to get a firearms license here than in the US, for a start you need a license before you go buy your gun and the slightest hint of a violation and it will be removed.
BTW after Dunblane all handguns had to be handed in to the police. You got iirc GBP15 or so compensation, regardless of the value of the weapon. People were weeping as they handed in pearl handled, gold inlaid antiques. No from my cold dead hands crap either. Some rich people exported their guns to gun clubs in France, but the average Joe can't afford that. We are unlikely to field an Olympics pistol shooting team in Beijing but hey?
Currently we are obsessing about knife crime, while violent crime and knife crime stats fall steadily. Though sadly it seems that knife injuries/deaths among the young is rising in some inner city areas.
@ No 319,Rudd-O,
see its not up to me or anyone else to take your gun away from you.
You guys seem perfectly fine and content with being the country with the highest rate of school shootings and gun-related killings,and if thats groovy with you,who am I to say otherwise?
Its just that to anyone outside the U.S. it is blatantly obvious that you have your logic all backwards,that having lots of guys with guns who might shoot you does not mean you have to have more guns to protect yourself from the people that already have one(or 10).
Will Greg Moore attempt to burn PZ at the stake ?
Nowadays, the Church doesn't burn people who deny the doctrine of transubstantation at the stake anymore.
No, they don't use the same methods as during the reign of queen Mary of England for instance :
Meet John Rogers. "On January 28 and January 29 1555, he came before the commission appointed by Cardinal Pole, and was sentenced to death by Gardiner for heretically denying the Christian character of the Church of Rome and the real presence in the sacrament. He awaited and met death cheerfully, though he was even denied a meeting with his wife. He was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield." (source wikipedia)
Meet John Frith. "He was sentenced to death by fire and offered a pardon if he answered positively to two questions: Do you believe in purgatory, and do you believe in transubstantiation? He replied that neither purgatory nor transubstantiation could be proven by Holy Scriptures, and thus was condemned as a heretic and was transferred to the secular arm for his execution on June 23, 1533. He was burned at the stake on July 4, 1533 at Smithfield, London for, he was told, his soul's salvation." (source wikipedia)
No, they don't burn people at the stake, and they don't anathematize them either. They haven't issued yet a press release that says :
No, they don't do that anymore, we're in the 21st century, they have adapted to today's laws and technologies. So instead, they get other people to do it for them, they have the Catholic League and their press releases, and they wait, comfortably, and cowardly, in complete approbation, until all these Catholic fanatics have sent their anathematizing emails and maybe, maybe, one of them like this Greg Moore tries to burn PZ at the stake.
Nothing has really changed since the reign of queen Mary of England. The instruments have changed, but the effects are still the same, when they continue to endoctrinate people and make them love worthless symbols more than humans, and they continue to approve and stimulate their most lunatic and fanatical reactions.
Nothing has really changed since the reign of queen Mary of England.
..except for the fact that state won't actually carry out a death sentence for heresy, and will prosecute and incarcerate people who threaten to do so, you mean?
Get serious.
-jcr
#53 Craigp - "The stats on gun ownership and gun control are also very iffy... so before you start condemning people you consider to be insane, perhaps you should read up on it. Maybe even meet a few?
Now VERY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE... they're insane. I've met quite a few. I can say that I would rather live with a gun nut than a religious nut."
OK but now you have to live with religious gun nuts as well.
jcr
what does that change ? The state is powerless against this. The most dangerous loons are those who don't threaten beforehand.
As long as the Church continues to endoctrinate people to such an extent as to be so in love with those worthless symbols and to stimulate this kinds of reactions, and to caution it, they are guilty.
Not until they denounce it, and fight against it, they are guilty. And nothing will have really changed since the reign of queen Mary.
A very wise man once said, that a gun is like a tourniquet: you rarely need it, but if you need it, you need it very badly, and you need it right away.
The moral issue in whether to tolerate a government infringing my right to self defense, is not dependent on the odds of my encountering a mugger, murderer, religious whacko, or maniac cop within my life expectancy. The long and short of it is, when the people are armed, the options available to governments are different than those available to a government whose citizens are unarmed.
A number of incidents in the history of our republic convince me that our own government is no more inherently benign than any other government in the world, it's just that we have a slightly better system of checks and balances. Setting the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature at each others throats was a good start, but the ultimate check on the excesses of government is a population willing and able to put its foot down when they get out of line. Setting aside the question of whether any politicians need killing this week, I am not willing to extend enough trust in all future governments of the USA that I would go along with a demand to disarm the people.
I live in a state where people have (within living memory, even!) been rounded up and incarcerated for the crime of having Japanese ancestors. I live only a few hundred miles from a city where the acquittal of a pack of JBT's in LAPD uniforms sparked a riot, whose participants targeted people of white and Korean ancestry for violence.
I have been told by many well-meaning people that the danger intrinsic in being a member of several readily-targeted minorities is minimal in the USA, but I would point out that many people living in the Weimar republic were just as convinced that their laws and constitution would protect them.
Now, I sincerely hope that the people who choose not to arm themselves never have reason to regret that decision, but as far as I'm concerned, the motto of the JPFO is quite convincing: Never Again.
-jcr
Not until they denounce it, and fight against it, they are guilty.
You're a bit out of date, there. The church does denounce the practice of making threats like this.
There are millions of Catholics in this country. A handful of them send threats. It does not follow that the church sanctions the behavior of the nutjobs who are threatening PZ.
-jcr
People claiming that widespread public possession of handguns in the USA is a bulwark against tyranny appear not to have noticed that the US government has abbrogated significant portions of your constitutional rights- for example, they can now spy on your communications without cause or warrant, and they can arrest you and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial, all in the name of the Global War on/of Terror - and your handguns didn't do jack to stop it.
jcr,
For crying out loud, have you seen any official condamnation by the Church and its governing body the USCCB and its President Cardinal George of all these threats of violence issued by Catholics to PZ Myers and encouraged by Bill Donohue for simply daring to express himself ?
Nope, so I'll stick to my line of condamnation of the Church until they actually DO SOMETHING about it.
Ok ?
I'm Greg Moore! And so's my wife!
(Apologies to Monty Python)
I'm thinking that there must have been a time when the first of our ancestors to use a killing tool found that carrying it around afterward got him respect and he found that emotionally rewarding.
If I am right, the emotional satisfaction comes first and the rational justifications are tools to serve that need, whether that is acknowledged or not.
Something I see the religious apologists doing all the time. Dubious arguments employed to maintain the emotionally rewarding condition. Of course I do not expect anyone arguing here for gun possession to admit that they feel empowered by guns.
I've never quite figured out if spears, trebuchets and guns really are phallic in their appeal. Still it makes for a good taunt about over compensating, just the same.
Your right to swing your gun about should stop when you are within maximum ballistic range of my nose. (Houston, 1970 - listening to a man describe Halloween and New Years celebrations there. Everyone goes out in the yard and empties their guns in the air.)
PZ, I'm going to be mad at you if poking idiots with sharp crackers gets you killed.
jcr said:
I'm curious: How did the handguns protect the people of Japanese ancestry from being locked up in prison camps? And the riots you speak of, are they really a good example of the population resisting the government? To me, they seemed to have been attacking more civilians than government officials. I don't doubt quite a few store owners looked into the business end of a gun that day when their store was looted.
Not sure why I'm getting myself involved in this whole "right to bear arms" discussion anyway, except maybe for this: When people claim that people need their handguns to protect themselves against their government, I've always wondered: What do they expect a few amateurs with handguns will do against trained professionals with chain guns and sniper rifles, not to mention against tanks and airplanes? Hasn't this whole idea been outdated since at least WW I?
Well, it says in the US constitution that bearing arms is for the defence of a free state, so therefore, having a concealed-carry permit for your handgun is _exactly_ like picking up your musket to fight the British in the 1760s.
Personally I think the first part of that amendment- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the defence of a free state..." should be interpreted quite directly; if you want to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, then you have to be in the National Guard.
:)
I agree with #165 and others who have presented this issue - I feel that having a gun in your home will more likely lead to accidental death of one of your loved ones as opposed to saving your family from an unlikely armed intruder.
#163, whatever Canada's gun license numbers are, I have never known anyone who keeps a gun in their home for the fear of needing to use it on an intruder. Yes, people may own guns for hunting purposes, but I just never hear of people here keeping a gun accessible in their home. Those that need to keep a gun in their home 'just incase' of an intruder are holding a ridiculous irrational fear of some 'what if' scenario that will probably never be realized for them, but they're putting their family at risk every day.
I guess using guns for hunting purposes is a bit of a different story, but even that makes me uneasy, especially when the kids get into it. Obviously as long as they're well supervised things should be OK, but I just don't get the need.
Again, the likelihood of a loved one, say a child, finding the gun in your home and having a tragic accident with it is much higher than an armed, violent intruder entering your home. Is feeling protected (the validity of this effect should be debated as well) in the event of an intruder really worth the risk?
I just don't get the importance of guns to some people's lives, and I think that in alot of cases it's driven by irrational fear and is just ridiculous and irresponsible.
Beowulff #339
What do they expect a few amateurs with handguns will do against trained professionals with chain guns and sniper rifles, not to mention against tanks and airplanes? Hasn't this whole idea been outdated since at least WW I?
You're right! All Americans should immediately be allowed to own planes and tanks to level out the playing field - anything else would be unconstitutional.
Stephen Wells @#340:
Except "the militia" is defined as all male citizens (and those becoming citizens) between the ages of 18 and 44 inclusive, and female members of the National Guard. Quoth the US Code, Title X, Section 311(a):
And? Suppose in every single case, the gun used was not the gun held in the victim's home. How do you see that negating the results, exactly?
Oh, come off it. The premise is that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed, not more likely to occur.
What famous 34% number? The study found an odds ratio of 1.6. After correcting for confounding factors, that rose to 2.7. This is the number which you, the junkie just out of jail, and everyone else, should be interested in.
As the title states, that study considered injuries and deaths, so that figure doesn't necessarily help us with the study in question, which considered only homicide. And it's a red herring in any case; the origin of the gun doesn't change the numbers, which show that the possession of a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, after adjusting for confounding factors.
Indeed (not to mention cruise missiles and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons). It didn't work out so well for those folks in Waco, did it?
I always wonder just how many federal law enforcement officers you have to kill before they realise you're just a true patriot defending the liberties of the Republic and not some crazy-ass terrorist cultist... And does that happen before or after they escalate to tactical nukes?
At DrFrank, #342:
Sarcasm aside (assuming you meant that sarcastically, of course) I had actually thought about that defense, which is why I changed my post to include the words "amateurs" and "trained professionals". Even with the same material available to them, a group of amateur individuals are never going to be evenly matched against professionals who have trained to work effectively in groups. And the more advanced the material, the more training it will require to master it, so an amateur, who can only spend a small portion of its time on training, will have an even greater disadvantage.
In the tradition of the great Nordic storytellers, there is already a video of the whole saga.
The story begins with PZ's idea simply being an idea. It is sometimes a little different or perhaps off balance, but it is just an idea. That idea is soon affronted by the villain, mean burly and out of control. There is violence and the idea could be hurt, oh my...
Enter our hero, PZ! He sternly admonishes the villain, and then with a point, and after that a Mighty Point, he sends the villain away in shame.
Behold, everyone who cares to see it knows PZ has a really good point-- pause, screen capture, set as desktop background good. Next, the pharyngulites offer comfort, they take care of his every need, and once his needs are met he dances, my spaghetti monster, he dances. Dance PZ, dance! Work it, baby. Celebrate The Point so that others will want to join and all will be rational with the world.
Bonus footage: Watch what happens when a person blind to reality offers him one of their tracts. Does PZ make another point? Does he dance even harder?
Cast
PZ's Idea played by Blue Hair.
Irrational Villain played by Black Wife Beater.
PZ played by That Which Trumps Chuck Norris.
Pharyngulites played by Happy Water Bottle Guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1nzEFMjkI4
Xeno at 226:
I live in Dexter, MI and I can tell you for a FACT that the road to Hell is paved with asphalt. It's also called (I'm NOT kidding) DARWIN Road.
Xeno @ #93
Assuming you live in the US I have a question...do you watch the news? Are you aware of your surroundings? The "unknown assailant"? I guess you choose victim.
"I mean, ultimately, using your idea, since criminals could have access to tanks and nuclear weapons, obviously so should I. What with being a lawful person and all."
Good argument. Ranks right up there with "god did it"!
@343: that's fascinating, thanks! I wonder how many US citizens know whether or not they're in the militia?
JJR wrote:
In the UK, it is quite normal to be born, live and die without ever coming within range of a live firearm.
"These are probably all empty threats"
I'd like to point out that there are no empty threats. Threat makers generally will, if they think they can get away with it and it isn't too much trouble, go through with their threats. The only thing that keeps them in check is a fear of freedom-loss and laziness. Demonstrably, it is NOT any sort of divine morality, which only seems to enable this behavior.
"I always wonder just how many federal law enforcement officers you have to kill before they realise you're just a true patriot defending the liberties of the Republic and not some crazy-ass terrorist cultist... And does that happen before or after they escalate to tactical nukes?"
This experiment is being run in Iraq right now. Apparently, it takes at least 6 years.
The other experiment is being run as well (that of asymmetric warfare). Turns out, it works pretty well. It worked well in Vietnam too. Go figure...
I do not favor this Moore's threats your life, but I don't favor your threats against the Eucharist either.
DON'T THREATEN THE CRACKER!
SO do you put them on the same level?
Steve_C: "LEAVE JESUS ALONE! *sob*"
Brian Cook @ 354: That's precisely the false equivocation PZ was pointing out in the first place. How can any sane person see a threat against a real, living human as equivalent to a threat against voodoo snack food?
"I do not favor this Moore's threats your life, but I don't favor your threats against the Eucharist either."
You. People. Scare. Me. How on earth are these comparable?
I do not favor this Moore's threats your life, but I don't favor your threats against the Eucharist either.
So hyperbolically claiming that you would like to do something potentially offensive with an article you don't as yet own (at the time of the original posting) is equivalent to e-mailing notes saying "I want you dead" in your mind?
What the hell kind of whackaloons is the American Catholic Church breeding these days anyway? (All the Catholics I know are sane, but also not Americans. I find there's a strong correlation between those two qualities anyway.)
@ 340
That's a reasonable interpretation, but, as you might know, the United States Supreme Court rejected it last month in District of Columbia v. Heller. 128 S.Ct. 2783, http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-scotus27-2008jun27,0,3423814.story?tr…
LOL, come and hang out at the Religious Issues subforum at Glock Talk:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55
BTW, could definitely benefit from a biology type or two willing to come to that forum and butt heads on occassion.
Obviously.
I rather liked the idea of slapping the cracker into the Koran, but I think it would go better if you applied a generous helping of spray-cheese and meat paste first. Don't be afraid of a little flavor, man.
T
prop an intro bio book above your front door and leave a trail of magic crackers to distract him. that should take care of him.
Hmm. Of the seven articles posted this month, five are about a single incident, in which nobody was actually shot, nor any shots fired.
Steve @ 365
Totally missed the point Steve.
"Over here, no citizen has a gun, and nobody feels any the worse for it"
Obviously you have no idea who has a gun. I was also wondering if UK law doesn't count the gun unless its fired?
"In fact we quite like it :-)"
Ignorance is bliss until the thug thats not "doesn't" have the gun because its "against the law" shoots you.
This is a little dated but very interesting:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml
Forgot to add this one:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
and this is all I have to say on the subject. Case closed.
I would like to add that before you start quoting stats that the population of the US is over 300 million while the UK is just over 60 million. That puts things in a clearer perspective.
Cheers
"I would opt for something that would mean I didn't have to kill people. Is there a reason people choose guns?"
Yes, to kill people.
I personally would regret to have to do it, but if I REALLY felt that a person was going to do me severe physical harm (as in, they arrive at my home after sending a note that said "I'm on my way to kill you"), I want that person removed, and permanently. I don't want to tase him, or make him cry capsaicin. I want him gone.
This isn't because of a desire to kill, but rather a desire to mitigate future risk. A person who attempts violent crime (which has happened to at least two people I know) is unlikely to be happy about the burst of pepper spritzer you gave them, even if it does allow you to subdue them and the police are called. Likewise for the non-fatal shot to the leg, or the (insert non lethal method here).
So many things can happen in the judicial/reform system that might release said individual into society again. Equally likely, the person won't have forgotten who got him there in the first place (other than himself). Since they have proven once that they make really bad decisions I have no reason to think they won't do so again. And personally, I like living, and living outside of a fear of imminent or nascent harm.
The one way I KNOW that person won't be back is if he is in a box. I know that's sad for them. It's sad for their family as well. But I would feel no personal guilt at having done such a deed, just a sadness at the environmental factors and the string of bad decisions that left them unnecessarily dead.
I've often wondered how the British populace defends against violent attack. Fisticuffs? Just "taking it"? I know that there is no shortage of violent tendencies in Britain. All you need to see that is a football match. But really, how would you defend yourself against someone wishing you grave harm? I don't mean someone saying "gimme your wallet", in which case the best thing to do is give it. I mean irrational, "I wanna kill you because I am drunk/high on PCP and think you insulted my girl/mom/soccer team/cracker"? This isn't a challenge, really - I am just honestly curious.
But really, how would you defend yourself against someone wishing you grave harm? I don't mean someone saying "gimme your wallet", in which case the best thing to do is give it. I mean irrational, "I wanna kill you because I am drunk/high on PCP and think you insulted my girl/mom/soccer team/cracker"? This isn't a challenge, really - I am just honestly curious. - Aegis
I'll let you know the first time it happens, supposing I survive. I'm 54, and have never carried a weapon. You remind me of the white knight in Alice Through The Looking-Glass who had provided his horse with anklets "to guard against the bites of sharks". If this kind of attack is really frequent enough in the USA to make carrying a gun a sensible response, then there is simply a vast difference between the USA and UK.
Randy@367,
That article really is a bunch of crap. In the first place, note that for homicide, the USA is still well ahead of any European country. Statistics for homicides are far more reliable than for lesser forms of crime - it is reliably reported and recorded, and has a fairly standard definition across countries, unlike, say, burglary. Second, the motivation for tightening gun restrictions in the UK was two mass-shootings by deranged individuals who were, nonetheless, legal gun-owners, and killed with the guns they legally owned. Since the laws were tightened, there have been no further crimes of this kind - not conclusive evidence of success, but so far, the aim of the change appears to have been achieved. Crimes of this kind seem to occur fairly frequently in the US.
Nick, I'd like to point out that I do not own a gun. The absolute best way to defend against this is to not get yourself in situations in which they are likely to occur. Being able to live in a nice part of town, and generally not being a total dick, I do not feel that the risk/benefit mix for me is a good one.
However, if I remind you of that fictional character, you really need to ask yourself if you're being honest. These things happen. You know it, and I know it. For some (both here in the US & the UK, they are not as lucky/well heeled as we might be and as such are forced to live in conditions that are not as safe as those we enjoy.
As an extreme example, I would not, for the life of me, NOT own a weapon were I forced to live in Iraq, Afghanistan, (much of) the Phillipines, or any other variety of places. I've seen places in US cities that would certainly give you pause for your safety. I am sure the UK has them as well. If you lived or worked in that situation, how would you handle it?
What your post tells me is that you are completely unprepared for a reality of the world. Ghandi, for instance, had a plan for dealing with violence. So do modern day Jains. So does billy-bob the gun toter. Their strategies are certainly different, but hell - at least they gave it some thought. It isn't like violence is a fictional construct - not even in the magical UK, where it is on the rise.
Chris Hall @ #14:
I think Kafir Girl has that beat, at least on the Quran front:
I'd like to reiterate - I really am just interested in the British mindset on dealing with violence. For instance, here in the US I'd never think of starting a physical fight. The reason is obvious. In the UK, that concern is largely removed and as such I am wondering if there's a certain tolerance for "duking it out" there to avoid the occasional "Nuking it out" that we have here in the US. In the US, where people are sue-happy, ANY physical contact is likely to bring a lawsuit. Is it similar in the UK?
Also, to be fair here, my comment:
"It isn't like violence is a fictional construct - not even in the magical UK, where it is on the rise."
Since it had an extremely low level of violence to begin with, it didn't have much else anywhere to go :).
Aegis,
Actually, it's not at all clear violence is "on the rise" in the UK. There's a current moral panic over a spate of stabbings, but getting reliable statistics on almost all crimes is very hard. Other than that, your latest comment is puzzling. You asked a question (saying it wasn't "a challenge"), I answered it, then you sneered at my answer. The likelihood I will encounter someone determined on irrational violence is tiny compared to other risks I run daily - I cycle to work, and am far more likely to be killed by a careless motorist than a psychopath. So yes, I have thought about it, and concluded that (even ignoring the fact that it's illegal here) the risks involved in carrying a weapon are far greater than those of not doing so.
Well, to be fair, you didn't JUST answer my question. You implied that in some way I was comparable to a fictional character, and I was pointing out why that characterization wasn't a good one, in that demonstrably there are no "land sharks" to share the path of the horse, but there ARE people that you could (depending on your situation) come in contact with that might do you harm.
I think we both agree that FOR US, the risks of ownership, of which there are many, outweigh the risks of not owning. However, there are situations in which I might consider owning one. I suspect, were you to move to Afghanistan on business, for instance, that you might do the same. Lucky for both of us, we aren't in that position. But I'm not going to blanket statement that "guns are bad, m'kay", as I think and hope you wouldn't.
Well Nick your own media, law enforcement and governmental agencies disagree with you (assuming your in the UK). As I said, ignorance is bliss.
Randy,
Much of the media certainly do their best to give the impression that you only have to step out of your house to get mugged. A lot depends on which figures you use (see for example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-down-but-credi…)- My main point is that it is simply difficult to get reliable crime statistics anywhere, figures for homicide probably being the most reliable.
Nick,
I was actually reading recently about the increase in stabbings, especially among teenagers. Seems the knife has replaced the gun in many instances. I was surprised to hear an actor from "Harry Potter" was stabbed and killed.
"People claiming that widespread public possession of handguns in the USA is a bulwark against tyranny appear not to have noticed that the US government has abbrogated significant portions of your constitutional rights- for example, they can now spy on your communications without cause or warrant, and they can arrest you and hold you indefinitely without charge or trial, all in the name of the Global War on/of Terror - and your handguns didn't do jack to stop it."
Indeed. And in point of fact a large portion of the very people who demand the right to own guns are the very same who say they have nothing to hide and that the government is right to take those privacy rights away. Interesting paradox of self-concern holding hands with the lack of it.
Personally, I am torn on the weapons issue. I do not own one, and do not at present intend to get one. I do think guns make it easier to kill people en masse, and this is typically borne out in nightly news stories.
But part of me does see some benefit in the detterent of subjugation, repulsive and mutinous as the propaganda in support of guns rights usually is. I think a case in point for the ability of guns to change a situation is - most unfortunately - Iraq. Armed sectarian groups have been quitre adept at defending themselves against our forces, or in keeping our forces in check in some cases. Ironically enough, the NRA's case is being made by the very kinds of people our gun rights are partly in place to defend against.
But it's still a thorny issue, because a government will always have more firepower in the end. They will have the tanks, the bombs, the munitions to outpace even an armed populace. And the rate at which our military technology is increasing, personal guns may feasibly become irrelevant anyways. Maybe not soon, but the possibility is there more than ever before. For example, imagine the ability of a government-owned tank to fire a non-destructive soundwave that knocks you out in your house, allowing them to enter unhindered. What's a gun going to do then? These things don't exist yet, but very well could, and quite soon. And here's one area where the right's unmitigated support for military spending could bite all of us in the ass: They've spent so much money dumping money into better weapons, that eventually they will be used on us. In fact they already are, in the form of private military forces like Blackwater. The right's combination of furor in protecting physical rights may become our very undoing from the inside out.
Didn't know that! Was the Marcus character the sort of plump kid? That's sad, for sure.
DAMMIT, in looking for a picture of the lad, I came across this:
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=romancingwizard
Uggh.
BlueIndependent: But it's still a thorny issue, because a government will always have more firepower in the end. They will have the tanks, the bombs, the munitions to outpace even an armed populace.
What stops the government from subjugating the populace is not the weapons held by the people, but by the people in government refusing to attack their own neighbors.
As you say, the government will always outgun the population. The only reason that the insurgents in Iraq have been successful is that their own population protects them (i.e., members of parliament), and we are unwilling to commit genocide to win.
Note that Al-Qaeda failed in Iraq not because of increased American military force, but because we turned the local governments (the local people).
In the same way, what protects you from police abuse is not that you have weapons -- it's that the police are "us". As soon as they stop feeling that way, we lose. The fact that so many Americans feel they need weapons to defend themselves from the "government" -- aka, the police and military -- is an incredibly bad sign that many Americans don't trust that their neighbors will refuse to follow orders to shoot on the populace.
Very scary.
Or, to put it another way: If you live in a country where you think you need guns to protect you from the government, you should move.
(...writes the American ex-pat who is now a Canadian citizen...)
Randy@379,
There's certainly been a spate of reported stabbings in recent months, but at least according to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/44874,opinion,media-obsession-risks-norma…,
the number has been stable over the last decade. I won't be surprised if you can find statistics saying otherwise - to repeat, my main point is that comparing crime rates across countries and across time is hard.
"Note that Al-Qaeda failed in Iraq not because of increased American military force, but because we turned the local governments (the local people)."
Al Qaeda also failed because it was trying to earn ground in a place that already had strident sectarian divisions that were more powerful.
But don't make the mistake of thinking Al Qaeda in Iraq is the same thing as Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The name and tactics are adopted, but they are not the same entity.
"In the same way, what protects you from police abuse is not that you have weapons -- it's that the police are "us". As soon as they stop feeling that way, we lose. The fact that so many Americans feel they need weapons to defend themselves from the "government" -- aka, the police and military -- is an incredibly bad sign that many Americans don't trust that their neighbors will refuse to follow orders to shoot on the populace."
I think it's a problem of a different stripe really. I think it has more to do with abject fear of the unknown stoked by latent Cold War sentiments that have hung around. The political right has feasted off of a sense of fear among a sizable portion of the public to push their America-is-forever-and-always-being-subverted-by-outside-forces meme. They've gotten to the point where they throw around words like treason, sedition, and traitor as if there's a cadre of Benedict Arnolds being bred specifically for the task of bringing down the US.
It's disgusting, but they continue to exist off of stoking fears that there are widespread elements in America active in bringing down Western civilization. This must necessarily spread to peoples' neighbors to seem credible, which means once someone's neighbor expresses a dissenting view, they fall into the bad column. Viola, civil division duly accomplished, and by the victims themselves no less.
BlueIndependent: Al Qaeda also failed because it was trying to earn ground in a place that already had strident sectarian divisions that were more powerful.
True, but irrelevant to the point. They had been gaining ground in the chaos of the occupation, but lost ground when the local people & governments decided to support other groups (such as the Ba'athists) instead. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (to be properly specific) isolated themselves from the population; we didn't hunt them down with increased forces (as McCain has attempted to lie), but they were unsuccessful because an insurgency can only be successful to the extent that they can disappear into the populace, and the opponent is limited.
Gandhi didn't beat the British with guns --- he beat them with the refusal of the Indian people to support the British. When the police refuse to fire, you win --- when the police will take orders, you lose.
Did ya know that our new plan is the Killcullen special? Return to the counter-insurgency techniques of the '50s --- the techniques that ultimately led to the retreat of the British from their colonies in SE Asia, the French from Algeria, ...? Will these folks ever learn that insurgency is primarily a problem of political organization and not military response?
Like the little boy with his finger in the dyke... against a tidal wave.
BlueIndependent: I think it's a problem of a different stripe really. I think it has more to do with abject fear of the unknown stoked by latent Cold War sentiments that have hung around. The political right has feasted off of a sense of fear among a sizable portion of the public to push their America-is-forever-and-always-being-subverted-by-outside-forces meme. They've gotten to the point where they throw around words like treason, sedition, and traitor as if there's a cadre of Benedict Arnolds being bred specifically for the task of bringing down the US.
Good point. But I've noted an element of confrontation between government (police, bureaucrats, etc) and civilians in the US that I only find in the kind of oppressed countries that we disdain. For example, the seargant voice that police use in the US, I've more rarely seen in South America.
It may come from a history where the US has been the kind of country where a large proportion of the population has been subjugated; where the role of the police and military have been to keep slaves and ex-slaves down, to attack unions organizing and veterans protesting for their pensions.
The major exception is US consular services --- they're the only folks who seem to recognize that they are servants, and not bosses. But then, they've always been working with the upper crust of Americans.
#385:
"Al Qa'idah of Mesopotamia," to be more accurate. The "Al Qaeda in Iraq" translation isn't very accurate, and is pushed mostly for propaganda purposes. (And I can't stand "Qaeda" for "Qa'idah." "Qa'ida" is acceptable. It's pronounced something like Kkha'hhEEdah, but it has a couple non-English consonants in it. Imagine the apostrophe as a glottal stop and you're halfway there.)
Same for the "Israel must be wiped off the map" (or even more egregiously, "We will wipe Israel off the map") mistranslation of Ahmadinejad quoting Khomeini. His actual words are more accurately translated as "the Imam said that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of [time/fate].'" It's like when Khrushchev said something like "we will [inhume you/commit the rites of your funeral]," bringing to mind mobsters presiding respectfully over the funeral of a rival, and it was translated as "we will bury you."
Put nothing past the Catholics. THEY decided what went into the bible, they add and subtract saints at their whim, they put more stock in Mary that that other guy and lest we forget, they went on a murderous rage while "inquiring" about other's beliefs or lack there of. Besides they are always kneeling and probably have horrible arthritic knee pain and that would make anyone testy.
How did the handguns protect the people of Japanese ancestry from being locked up in prison camps?
In California, it didn't help, since the people there were far too eager to comply to prove their loyalty. Rather sad, really. In Montana, however, the FBI showed up to round up Japanese-American ranch hands, and were met by local ranchers with all manner of privately-owned weapons, who told them "You aren't taking our japs".
-jcr