George Zimmerman Explodes the NRA Fantasy of the Armed Citizen

[BainsBane]

An interesting column on what the Zimmerman cases says about NRA propaganda about the armed citizen defending himself from criminals. It's worth reading the whole thing.

It can be hard to tell how much of it is driven by cynicism and how much is honest paranoia, but there's no denying the commitment with which the NRA promotes the fantasy that an armed America is a safer America.
After all, the newsletter of the NRA's lobbying arm is called Armed Citizen. It promises that "While the anti-gun media doesn't want to report the truth about Americans using guns for self-defense as often as 2.5 million times a year, you can read breaking stories of everyday citizens fending off violent criminals." . . .

As Zimmerman's killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin so horribly demonstrates, far from making people safer, all too often a gun makes a bad situation much, much worse. Accept for the moment Zimmerman's own account of the night of February 26, 2012: after he had followed Martin, Martin attacked and got the better of him, and, in fear for his life, he shot Martin in self-defense.

Zimmerman says that Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. Since no one is claiming Martin set out that evening for anything other than Skittles and an iced tea -- certainly not to kill someone he'd never met before -- even if we believe Zimmerman's story, that story tells us that the presence of a gun helped turn a fist fight into a killing. Without the gun, the encounter might never have happened, since Zimmerman would have been a pistol's-worth less confident about getting out of his car and following Martin.

. . .

Now let's take a step back and consider the crime Zimmerman thought was involved here. If Zimmerman's suspicion about Martin had been right, instead of wildly wrong, Martin would have been guilty of burglary.

Burglary is not punishable by death.
And yet Armed Citizen regularly celebrates the killing of burglars and other non-violent offenders."

The article goes on to show that gun ownership has declined and with in violent crime. If the NRA propaganda were true, one would expect crime to rise with declining gun ownership. Moreover the areas with the highest density of guns have the highest incidence of violent crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-critchley/george-zimmerman-nra-armed-citizen_b_3559082.html

[Skittles]

1. the NRA represents paranoid cowards

their POSTER BOY is TED FREAKING NUGENT

[Skittles]

3. or, apparently, stay off a public road

too bad Trayvon was not given that advice?

[BainsBane]

5. How dare he walk about in public while black

Gun owners get to kill anyone who spooks them because they are afraid a black guy might steal their fucking television set.

[BainsBane]

22. Notice

He deleted rather than dealing with the question. He exposed himself a bit too much in that post.

[Skittles]

27. it's what cowards do, BainsBane

oh yeah

[BainsBane]

4. What?

Martin didn't go into anyone's home. He was walking home from the store in public, but he was black and to a paranoid like Zimmerman that meant he was dangerous. This is an example of a CCW holder killing for no reason. If he'd have left his gun home or just left Trayvon the fuck alone, everyone would have been better off, Zimmerman included. It shows the danger posed by paranoids walking around with guns, and if people feel the need to carry a gun to leave the house, they are by definition paranoid, which is why they kill. There is no logical reason to be spooked at the sight of a black teenager. It's a symptom of an unstable, racist personality, which is precisely who makes up the readership of the NRA's fucked up publication.


How about the solution is not to worry more about your stuff than human life? There is something seriously wrong with people who value material items more than human life.

[rrneck]

6. Can you identify a causal link between a gun and the impulse to use it improperly? nt

[BainsBane]

7. I guess it's too much to expect you would actually read the editorial?

The rate of gun homicide by those owning or carrying guns is exponentially higher than those who don't. That point is obvious. No one without a gun shoots someone.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

More evidence at: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[rrneck]

10. Um, yeah.

The rate of gun homicide by those owning or carrying guns is exponentially higher than those who don't.

That's called correlation.

[BainsBane]

15. All the available data on guns is correlation

That's what happens when congress listens to the NRA and bans federally funded research.

In this particular case it's basic logic. Obviously you can't shoot someone without a gun.

[rrneck]

32. Can you establish

causation between the object and the intent of its use?

[BainsBane]

38. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence

Of anything other than your blind faith in guns. You ask for evidence and then reject it because it doesn't confirm your bias. Yet you provide nothing, ever. What a surprise. Guns kill 32000 a year. There is clear evidence for that. The real issue is people like you simply do not care that people die. All you care about is your guns. That is all that has ever mattered to you. All this nonsense about evidence is bullshit. You are surrounded by evidence that you ignore all the time. Your pretense at caring about facts is proven false by your reactions here and your refusal to deal with reality. This is really about the simple fact that you believe your rights to have any and all guns any and everywhere is more important than the lives of those 32,000 people killed by guns everywhere. If you didn't think that, you wouldn't work so diligently to promote guns. Yet you refuse to be honest enough, so you engage in denial, propaganda, and distractions. You fool no one but yourselves. Everyone else can see just how desperate your efforts at self deception are. This performative dance is really quite sad. I can't imagine devoting that much energy to lying to myself. It must be exhausting. I'm not interested in indulging your need for self justification.

[rrneck]

40. What is it about a gun

Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)

that causes people to misuse them 32,000 times a year?

How does "gun proliferation" cause all those murders?

[reusrename]

63. It's mental masturbation.

Chickenshit cowards like Zimmerman strap on a gun and they instantly become a badass because they know they are more physically powerful than an unarmed person.

Does anyone really believe Zimmerman would have gotten out of his vehicle to follow the Martin kid if he wasn't wearing a gun?

I honestly cannot believe you have to ask this question. It's so simple you should be able to figure it out. It's not rocket surgery.

[rrneck]

67. I certainly believe you can't answer it.

If the gun has an effect on an individual, why don't you explain how it works. All you've done so far is make assumptions and fling insults, both of which are not unjustified.

Why don't you explain the dynamic that occurs between a firearm and a human being such that you can predict how any given person will respond to the firearm? What characteristics about a gun cause people to think a certain way? How efficacious are they?

Show your work.

[reusrename]

69. It's child's play, really. Packing a gun is exactly like using steroids only it's instant.

No male individual likes to accept the reality that he's a spineless coward, so carrying a lethal weapon around all the time lets him avoid ever having to face up to it.

I guess you could call it the Schwarzenegger syndrome. It's well known to most people who can think and reason.

[rrneck]

72. So

we are to infer that women readily admit to being spineless cowards?

You have yet to actually explain how you draw your conclusions. If Zimmerman was suffering from this syndrome (is it listed in the DSM?), surely you have some background material, patterns of behavior or the like to support your claim. I don't think idle insults will be enough to give your diagnosis any credibility.

[reusrename]

76. Is the concept really that difficult for you?

There are also some women with the same self-esteem issues, I've met a couple, but by far you see men who act this way.

Not everybody who carries a gun has issues. But the Zimmerman's are out there in pretty good numbers. I've run into many of them. You'd be lying if you said you haven't ever met anyone like that.

[rrneck]

77. So

women have self esteem issues, and men won't admit they are spineless cowards. Okay.

Hm, "pretty good numbers". Well, that's definitive. I'll allow myself to be carried away on waves of optimism and reach once again for something concrete to discuss. Let's try this:

What do you know about Zimmerman?

[reusrename]

86. I know he's a murdering, lying sack 'o shit.

What do you know about him?

[rrneck]

90. Well, lets see...

He is a cop wannabe, but failed in that task. He is probably a racist. He has at least pretended to train in martial arts. He has a well to do and somewhat powerful father, which probably resulted in an inflated sense of entitlement. His connections with local law enforcement probably contributed to the same sense of entitlement.

So should we attribute all of these character flaws to the evil influence of the gun, or consider the much more likely possibility that the gun, as well as his attitude and actions, are the result of a much more complex set of factors?

[BainsBane]

65. They aren't misusing it

They are using it precisely as designed. I'm starting to worry you have no idea what your guns do.

[rrneck]

68. I already told you they were designed to kill. Try and keep up.

Why don't you look at this gun and show me where it says it was manufactured to be misused, which is to say it is designed to be used illegally.

[BainsBane]

94. well if the point isn't to kill

You should really find something else. What sort of killing is legal? Like George Zimmerman's killing of Martin?

[rrneck]

112. What sort of killing is legal?

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

It's called Justifiable Homicide

United States

A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would largely not be considered justifiable.

In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. In the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[1] New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat in certain situations (depending on the state, this may apply to one's home, business, or vehicle, or to any public place where a person is lawfully present). Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right. Justifiable homicide is a legal gray area, and there is no clear legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.

In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v Heller, the majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".[2]

[TampaAnimusVortex]

47. Not quite...

"Guns kill 32000 a year. " -- Nope, people with guns might kill someone, guns themselves are inanimate objects.

"The real issue is people like you simply do not care that people die. All you care about is your guns." -- Obviously silly, attempt at demonization of the "other side". Maybe further hyperbole could be that they WANT everyone shot and tortured? Maybe babies even eaten?

"You are surrounded by evidence that you ignore all the time." - Of course the same could be said the other way, confirmation bias isn't a one way street.

The rest is rather repetitive of the previous points or shallow attempts to claim mass consensus when obviously the nation isn't of one mind on the issue. Please try again with further appeal to emotion.

[BainsBane]

66. So what is your response

to the toddlers and dogs that discharge firearms? Where they homicidal and evil?
Gun are designed for killing. That is their purpose. If that isn't your intent, you have the wrong instrument.

The nation isn't at one on the issue. The nation is insane. The rest of the world sees that. Any person with a functioning brain stem sees that the widespread proliferation of guns has done great damage to this country. You do not care. No one can force you to care, but to pretend guns don't cause horrendous mortality is absurd You are simply denying reality.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

119. My response isnt more emotional hyperbole...

"The nation isn't at one on the issue. The nation is insane." -- Awesome argumentative tactic... declare other side insane... argument won. Game over!

" You do not care." -- more repetition of previous invalid attempts to demonize other side... please continue. I suggested that you might want to consider claiming they also eat babies or at least put them on spikes for fun.

"You are simply denying reality." - Repetition of the confirmation bias point without acknowledging the possibility of one's own ability to be denying reality. This is called projection at the very least.

My suggestion is to continue to rephrase your previous points as you have just done. Please continue.

[BainsBane]

8. and this

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[rrneck]

11. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023222478#post10

[BainsBane]

17. In other words

Don't answer my question or show me anything that challenges my preexisting faith based system that guns have absolutely nothing to do with homicide.



My, you are transparent.

[rrneck]

33. There are many words you may use

but I asked for causation between a gun and malicious intent.

[Loudly]

104. Don't you think Zimmerman's possession of a gun affected his decision to go hunting?

Or stalking or confronting or whatever else you want to call it?

Of course it did.

Which provoked a fight, which resulted in a shooting.

Causation is pretty self evident here, though hard core gun worshippers are loathe to even call it misuse.

They consdier its use to have been perfectly justified from beginning to end.

[rrneck]

117. Of course it did.

Then again his lunch affected his brain chemistry as well. It's not a question of whether or not it had an effect, but how much of an effect in relation to the constellation of other factors that contributed to his fuck up.

Only a jaded ideologue with no interest in reality claims to know how much the gun played into his decision.

[BainsBane]

9. crickets?

[rrneck]

13. A firearm is an object that exists in the real world.

It has certain physical properties that can be rather precisely measured. The relationship of those physical properties on the other people and objects in the real world can also be precisely measured. If you want to assert that firearms cause people to behave irresponsibly, you need to establish a causal link using empirical evidence. Claims that there is more gun crime where there are more guns are simply absurd. And trotting out the NRA as some sort of evil demon is reminiscent of the sort of fear mongering more common in the twelfth century. At least your fixation on a single cause for evil gets you to the middle of the nineteenth century.

Can you establish a causal link between a firearm and the impulse to use it improperly?

[BainsBane]

21. I have provided evidence

You dismiss it because it doesn't confirm your faith based view of guns. Why don't you try providing some evidence that guns don't kill. Go on. Show us how they truly bring about peace, love, and understanding as opposed to death. Explain that the US doesn't really have the highest homicide rate in the world because of irrational gun nuts who refuse to deal with reality.

Considering guns are so peaceful and not intended to harm a fly, why do you have them? If the point is not to kill, why not modify them so they CAN'T kill? They could still make the loud boom that makes you feel important. Or perhaps that isn't what makes you feel important. Could it be the possibility of taking a life is exactly what gun nuts so relish?

[Decoy of Fenris]

24. Sorry, BB, but your conclusions don't match the evidence.

Take a look at your cite; it's a prime example of a masturbatory argument. "People with guns shoot people more than people who don't have guns." ... Well YEAH. That's a given, because people who don't have guns don't shoot people; they beat them to death with golf trophies, or stab them with broken pool cues. Pure logical thought processes indicate that people who have an item in their possession (gun) and use that item for a particular purpose (gun crime, let's say), go figure, are -participating in gun crime more than people who don't commit gun crime with a gun.-

The problem with Mother Jones and most of the studies I've seen out of them is that MJ tends to publish easily read yet highly misunderstood/misleading articles.

To put it more simply:

Person A has a gun.
Person B does not have a gun.

Both people then assault a person.

Person A uses a gun in the assault
Person B does not use a gun in the assault

Mother Jones then goes on to tell us that "Of gun crimes, Person A used more gun than Person B."
While the point may be accurate, the study and the very premise behind it is both intellectually dishonest and flawed.



What the other guy is saying is just that; Correlation is there, causation is not. He's asking you to offer evidence to causation, not correlation.

[BainsBane]

28. Obviously people without guns can't shoot

I thought it pretty funny he didn't pick up on that. Mother Jones provides data from the CDC and other sources. Nothing you have said critiques that data. Your hypothetical examples don't deal with what they actually say. That you don't like the findings doesn't make them false. Your points are empty.

There is a reason the gun lobby works so hard to suppress research. Part of it is so people like you can continue to delude yourselves. Some things are obvious and any rational person can discern them. Guns kill and they kill very efficiently. The majority of homicides are committed with guns. Therefore having guns increases not only the possibility of someone's committing homicide but another kind of killing. People without guns don't shoot young black teens walking home from the corner store. That is a distinction that falls entirely to the paranoid with a gun.

You can deny reality all you want. It doesn't change facts. The US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized west because of the insanity of gun proliferation. Only an ideologue unconcerned with facts can't see something so obvious.

[Decoy of Fenris]

108. Let me make it even simpler for you:

Person A likes the color red.
Person B likes the color blue.

People who wear the color red are more likely to like the color red.


Do you see how absolutely idiotic that sounds? Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be wearing red now, would they? Are the MJ studies accurate? Of course they are, because the way MJ phrased the article, they -have- to be correct. "I like red, so therefore I like red more than people who don't like red" is not some vastly significant revelation, it's common sense. It's a self-masturbatory study that congratulates itself, but serves little purpose other than that.

[louis-t]

31. Maybe you could carry a pool cue with you at all times.

You'd still be safer than if you carry a gun at all times.

[Decoy of Fenris]

109. Did it, and used it.

My first two college years, I had an unscrewable aluminum pool cue that I used for both personal and dorm security. I only had to use it twice.

[Hoyt]

35. I don't know, I think you have to have a pretty callous temperament to arm up and carry in public.

That callousness -- and other closely associated factors such as majority of gun owners fear minorities -- causes a lot of people to use their guns improperly.

But, why don't you encourage the NRA to quit standing in the way of funding for studies that would likely prove just that to people who can't see beyond the front sight on their toter.

[Decoy of Fenris]

111. I think people who dictate what others can and can't do are callous.

You know, religious fundamentalists, anti-choice whackos, devotees of the War on Drugs, Republicans in general, basically anyone who wants to tell people what they're allowed to do with their money or body. It's the hallmark of sociopathic tendencies, far more than simply owning or carrying a gun.


"That callousness -- and other closely associated factors such as majority of gun owners fear minorities -- causes a lot of people to use their guns improperly. "

I've yet, in rural New York, met any gun owner who has ever indicated fear of minorities, or a general callousness towards human life. Do you have a citation for that, or is that just a statement without backing? I know where you're coming from Hoyt, and I get that you don't like guns, but you're flat out wrong about gun owners; you judge without proof, and then slather a large number of innocent people with a quite frankly offensive and inappropriate broad brush. If you want to hate guns, go ahead; that's your right, and I can't say I blame you. Please don't rope my family, my friends or my shooting buddies into your completely rational hatred simply because they enjoy guns and shooting them.


You want to know why it's so hard to get the NRA to see common sense? Because people give them reasons to be lunatics. Certain people allow the NRA to point at them, say "This person wants to ban your guns." "This person wants to ban your ammo." "This representative wants to deny your civil rights. Now give us money to stop them."

As I told Robb, Controller folks are the NRA's wet-dream; the more talk about banning, the more money flows into their coffers. That's why some of us RKBA folks -really- wish the hyperbole about "Banning" guns would stop, because it only feeds into the NRA's hands and bankroll. All you have to do is say "gun ban" and the wallets come out and the NRA grows in strength. Hell, they're as much the RKBA crew's enemies as MAIG's: The NRA makes responsible gun owners look bad because the NRA largely consists of -irresponsible- gun owners. Trust me, there's only two groups that we -really- want to stop: The National Rifle Association and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Realistically, the only way we'll make progress is when both of those groups dissolve.

[Hoyt]

113. We are talking guns here. I think society has right to define how yahoos use them. Enjoy yours.

[Decoy of Fenris]

115. You're right, of course.

Reality is perception, and if people -perceive- a group as yahoos, then yahoos they are. Why do you think that myself and others are attempting to move the firearm topic away from the lunatic fringes on both sides? They're a bunch of yahoos and do nothing to benefit or advance safety or responsibility on the firearm topic. Hell, half of the MAIG are gun felons.

[rrneck]

34. Of course guns kill. It's what they're designed to do.

I asked for a causal relationship between a gun and malicious intent.

[BainsBane]

42. There need not be a causal link

The problem is guns enable someone with malicious intent to act in evil ways. I can sit around my house all day hating someone and even thinking about the fact I want to kill them. It's the gun that makes murder possible. It is not the only method for killing, but it is by far the most efficient and most common in this country.

[rrneck]

46. Well, you made the assertion

that "gun proliferation" caused our murder rate. You can't seem to support that assertion. Pity.

Are you in pretty good shape? I used to be but not any more. Back when I was doing karate I could do 150 roundhouse kicks in sixty seconds. But I knew then, and even more so now, that I wouldn't stand a chance against an actual bad guy.

Given the huge disparity of force between most of us and those who would do us harm, lack of a gun is no real hindrance to the bad guys. If you want proof just ask yourself how well you could take a punch from someone whose job description is "thug".

[BainsBane]

52. I'm a middle aged woman

I am not in good shape, but I have common sense. I've lived in the inner city most of my life. I know how to handle myself. No one bothers me. If you go around scared all the time, you are more likely to be targeted.

The cause between guns and the US murder rate is made evident in international homicide stats. At a conference at Stanford aired this weekend on CSPAN, a series of researchers made clear that there is no other country with our standard of living with a comparable homicide rate. The only factor that explains it is the density of guns in the population. That is obvious to the entire world. Everyone who is not blinded by dogma can see that. Gun nuts choose not to. It is absurd. Obviously they have some sort of psychological need to deny reality, which is sad in and of itself.

[rrneck]

81. Ah.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 03:38 AM - Edit history (2)

You are to be congratulated on the power of your common sense. It seems that 718,175 people failed to measure up to your shining example of self conscious courage in 2010. It is a pity indeed they were too stupid and cowardly to build for themselves a bubble of invulnerability such that you enjoy.

What are we to think of an attitude that scolds and judges others from a position of invulnerability? What sort of arrogance does it take to judge others, assuming the most nefarious of motives, based on no evidence beyond ones cloistered fundamentalism? What sort of blinders does one have to wear to shield from their view the reality of human nature? How much decadent leisure does it take to ignore physics?

You have proven nothing. You have offered no evidence of a causal relationship, no matter how much you swaddle it in assorted backhanded insults. I have asked repeatedly for evidence of a causal relationship between guns and people's use of them, and you repeatedly point to correlation. You trot out the most common logical fallacy there is as if it were gospel and then accuse others of stupidity or heresy for not believing it.

I'll ask you again:

If guns are the cause of our homicide rate, show a causal relationship between guns and the people who use them improperly.

[BainsBane]

96. I think the difference is some people look for trouble

People like George Zimmerman and the other CCW holders who look for trouble find it. People who carry guns like to use them, so they do.

What kind of arrogance does it take to proclaim your own desires for guns more important than the 32,000 people killed every year. If you all weren't so busy pushing guns on the population, you wouldn't need to live in such fear. You created an armed society, you can live with the consequences. If Zimmerman is acquitted, the racist gun totters are going to go out and kill black people. They are paranoid lunatics, and they look to kill because they are killers. If you don't want to kill, carry some pepper spray. Take a self defense class. Guns are about the least effective means of self defense available. If you're not strong, chances are good that gun will be taken off you, which puts you at greater danger.

Now you answer a question. Why is indulging your paranoia more important than the 32,000 people killed every year? We're supposed to let you kill cause you can't bother to go to the gym? That's not a reason. You need to fix whatever is happening psychologically that makes you feel so inadequate and frightened all the time. That isn't rational.

[rrneck]

116. I don't carry a gun.

Take a self defense class.

I have taken a self defense class and I, unlike you, know how much training it takes to defend yourself in hand to hand combat. I've sparred with people who used to kick box for their regiment in the 82nd Airborne and I know what it feels like to get kicked by someone that outweighs you by sixty pounds. How much training have you actually done?

If you're not strong, chances are good that gun will be taken off you

If you're not strong a self defense class won't do you any good, so you just contradicted yourself there. Have you ever tried to take a gun away from somebody? Here's a little test for you. Find a kid and give them a squirt gun full of paint. Then put on your best Sunday dress and try to take that squirt gun away from her without getting paint on you. Here's a tip: facile bullshit won't help.

What kind of arrogance does it take to proclaim your desire for a violence free utopia for yourself more important than 718,175 people brutalized by someone larger and stronger than them every year? What do you have to say for them? Don't you care? What solution do you offer those people? Surely you have some glib snippet you gleaned from the internet while ensconced in your bubble of confidence. The OP you trot out as proof of something beyond your own jaded sanctimony is little more than a fallacy of division.

It's all well and good to scold people on the internet for entertainment, but there is a real world out there and your glib insults won't help anybody out of a scrape, including you. If that's how you want to handle it good luck. Think back how upset you were when somebody shot a hole in your car. How will you feel when he comes at you with a brick in his hand? Or will your supreme self confidence win the day?

Well it looks like you're spinning away into facile hyperbole again. Here's a bit of reality for you. There are people in the world larger and stronger than you. That's called a disparity of force. Guns were invented to resolve that disparity. Nothing else works better. They don't work every time because, well, reality. You can entertain your prejudices as much as you want but it won't help you or anybody else when they get assaulted. Until you admit that fact, you won't have any credibility in a discussion like this.

[BainsBane]

43. Then there is a point that no one purchases a gun

who doesn't intend to use it. For handguns, the only practical use is on other human beings. If they don't intend on killing someone, they should really find something else to make themselves feel whole. I find it odd that someone's self worth revolves around an instrument of murder. I can't imagine what it's like to think your rights depends on the capacity to kill another human being. Thankfully, no one I know thinks that way. The gun owners I know are hunters, and while some vegetarians may find that troublesome, I do not.

[rrneck]

45. Guns are equally useful

for offence as defense. In fact, people with a propensity for violence have less need for a gun to harm others as someone who might need it to resolve a disparity of force.

You self serving sanctimony is entertaining.

[BainsBane]

49. "defense" like George Zimmerman?

A paranoid guy gets freaked out at the sight of a black man and pulls out his gun. So some out of shape guy is losing in a fist fight so he pulls out a gun and kills the other person? I'm sure you find that useful. I find it homicidal. Hopefully the jury will as well.

If they minded their own business instead of freaking out at the sight of every black person, they wouldn't have to kill anyone. Paranoia and racism are not reasons to kill people, no matter how fucked up the assailant is. Normal people are not so afraid of their own shadow they need guns. The only people who do that are those who WANT to kill.

[rrneck]

91. Zimmerman was the agressor in that encounter.

And then you leap from that bad example to some amorphous "they" and apply racism and abnormality to that undefined group. What sort of people make that leap?

[BainsBane]

50. sanctimony

Yes, to pretend killing and not killing are equally just positions. Let's pretend there is no difference between the two because it makes you feel better.

God forbid you would have to rely on your mind to get yourself out of jam.

[rrneck]

92. Killing is always wrong, every time, I don't care why.

I guess all those people who get brutalized by others not using a gun just aren't as smart as you.

[spin]

58. I have bought many handguns with no intention of ever killing anything with them. ...

I use them to punch holes in paper at ranges from 15 to 150 feet. It's called target shooting.

I have also bought handguns for home defense and legal carry. Once again I didn't buy them to kill another person but to hopefully to stop a serious attack by a home invader or a street thug if absolutely necessary. There is an excellent chance that if I shoot such an attacker in the center body mass, he will stop trying to put me in the hospital or six feet under but will survive to stand trial.

I have been shooting handguns on a regular basis for over 40 years, I have never hunted game nor do I have any interest in doing so in the near future.

It's obvious that you do not have any handgun target shooters in your circle of friends. That may be because of where you live. You do know some hunters and have no problem with their owning firearms. The weapons they use are often far more powerful and deadly than the handguns I use.

[BainsBane]

59. If you don't intend on killing

Why not choose a non lethal method of self defense? Killing in self defense is still killing. If Zimmerman is acquitted, that doesn't make Martin any less dead.

Do you walk around with those target guns, poised to kill a black teenager who spooks you, as Zimmerman did? I don't care if you use guns to shoot at targets. I care about people being shot. Being spooked by a young black male or protecting property does not justify killing someone.

It appears to me that some CCW holders like Zimmerman go looking for trouble, and as result they find it.

[spin]

61. I have several methods of handling an attack on the street. ...

I have had martial arts training in the past but now I an 67 years old and suffer from back and hip problems and have a handicapped sticker to hang on my rear view mirror. Realistically I would have a hard time defeating a much younger opponent in prime physical condition. Running is not an option, the best I can do is limp fast.

I do often carry pepper spray as a non lethal alternative. However using pepper spray can have serious drawbacks. Visit http://www.buy-pepper-spray-today.com/dangerous-pepper-spray-mistakes.html to view these shortcomings.

You state,

"Do you walk around with those target guns, poised to kill a black teenager who spooks you, as Zimmerman did? I don't care if you use guns to shoot at targets."

Obviously you view me as a racist gun owner who fears blacks. You would be wrong. My family has many black friends. We also took in a black teenager who needed a home and helped him get his ID and a job. He lived with us for two years and now is employed and off on his own. We have opened our home which once was a hotel to many people over the years who were in need. The race of the person was not a consideration and we have also helped Hispanics.

I should add that I don't carry a target pistol. Such weapons are usually heavy and large. I carry a snub nosed .38 or .22 magnum S&W revolver which is more of a close range weapon than a target weapon. If I actually had a paranoid fear of being attacked, I would carry a .357 magnum at the minimum.

[BainsBane]

98. Question

If pistols are for targets, why do they have to be lethal? I don't know if you are racist. I don't know you. But I know all of us are taught in a myriad of ways to fear black men. It's a rare person who doesn't have that in them. The difference is some people acknowledge and confront it in themselves and others refuse to acknowledge or question it.

Guns are among the least effective methods for self defense. You are far more likely to have that gun used against you or use it against someone recklessly, as Zimmerman did. Even if acquitted, that doesn't change the fact that Martin would not have died if Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night, if he had minded his own business instead of targeting a random black teenager, or if he'd listen to the 911 dispatcher. People who carry guns look for a chance to use them. That is what is so dangerous. They create trouble where none need exist.

[spin]

103. Good question. ...

Some pistols are made for target shooting that are not as lethal as common firearms. Air pistols are used in olympic competition and actually are more accurate than firearms. I do own two very accurate air pistols and practice target shooting with them.

I was not raised in a home that taught racism. My father worked as an insurance inspector in a predominately black neighborhood in Pittsburgh and had a number of back acquaintances and friends. He often told me that skin color made it much harder for blacks to gain the equality that other ethnic groups like the Irish and the Italians had achieved over the years. Still he felt that our nation was a "great melting pot" and that in 100 years intermarriage would dissolve the racial barrier between blacks and whites and our nation would benefit from it. He died in 1963, fifty years ago. I think it is quite possible that his prediction will prove true.

Firearms are extremely effective self defense weapons in those rare situations where a person is under a serious attack that might result in serious injury or death. That's one reason the police are armed. I will agree that firearms are extremely dangerous items to have in your house and I have personally seen both the good and the bad that firearms can cause. When people ask me about owning a firearm for self defense, I often do my best to discourage them. Firearms are not for everybody.

If I would have been in Zimmerman's shoes that night, I probably would not have been all that worried about a young person wearing a hoodie walking through my neighborhood. There's nothing unusual about that, especially in the rain. At the most, I would have called the police and when told not to follow would have driven on.

[BainsBane]

105. Thanks for answering

[spin]

107. No problem. (n/t)

[uponit7771]

12. RIght, there are no murders via gun in the US....regards

[rrneck]

14. Can you establish a causal link between the gun and the impulse to use it.

Did the gun cause someone to think a certain way?

[reusrename]

64. So Zimmerman would have killed the Martin kid even if he didn't own a gun?

You've really got no idea how the fact that Zimmerman had a gun has anything to do with his killing that kid?

I don't believe anyone is this stupid.

[rrneck]

70. What else do you know about Zimmerman?

Or is your understanding of the issue confined to the individual and the gun?

[reusrename]

71. Aren't you arguing that the gun has nothing to do with the killing?

You think he would have gone after the Martin kid if all he could arm himself with was a knife?

[rrneck]

73. No.

I was asking BB to define the cause and effect relationship between guns and the human impulse to use them improperly. Since Zimmerman is (I assume) human and he had a gun, perhaps you could define that relationship in empirical terms.

[reusrename]

74. The desire to shoot the kid would be there whether or not he has a gun.

There is no junk science to support something as irrational as what you are asking.

[rrneck]

75. There is no science junk or otherwise.

But you knew that. What else do you know? Or are you totally fixated on the gun and your dislike for Zimmerman?

[reusrename]

84. Then why insist on setting up this strawman?

All through this thread you confront different members with what you now admit is a strawman.

Why?

[rrneck]

88. I didn't make the assertion.

The OP seems to assert that guns are the cause of our homicide rate. I was trying to get her to provide some evidence of that assertion. Of course, when we combine the "G" word with the "Z" word, people leap to all sorts and kinds of conclusions. Have you asked me once what I thought of the Zimmerman case? Have you researched my opinion on the matter? I expect not. You seem to have indulged in the same armchair psychology in your evaluation of me that you used on Zimmerman. It was unfair and insulting, and I didn't say anything to deserve to be spoken to in that fashion.

Now, regarding the Zimmerman thing. This is my position on the matter. He should never have gotten out of his car. He precipitated the confrontation and is responsible for it. He should go to jail for murder and he will barring a huge miscarriage of justice or jury nullification. Either way, it isn't an easy case to prove. If you trouble yourself to look, you will find I have expressed that same opinion repeatedly since the shooting.

Regarding a causal link between guns and violence. To prove that, you will have to actually get some empirical evidence that the presence of the gun caused somebody to act a certain way. That's just not doable. There is simply not a one to one correspondence between an object and any particular action. One's perception of the object can be a contributing factor, but the power of that contribution is impossible to measure or predict. Furthermore, nobody does anything for just one reason, and such attributions of a single cause were left behind in the nineteenth century. Each and every object in our lives has symbolic power, but it is impossible to accurately evaluate that power either for one individual or a population of same. You have projected your response to the symbolic power of a gun onto Zimmerman, and like most self deceptions it has a grain of truth buried in preconceived notions and self delusions.

I will be going to bed shortly, but if you would like to continue this conversation I'd appreciate it if you could think beyond your preconceived notions about me, guns, and causality. It's not as simple as you think.

[rrneck]

83. To clarify

The OP seems to be asserting, (swaddled in insults) the high firearms ownership is the cause of our homicide rate. I asked for a causal link. We might find that link in an examination of the population as a whole, or in an examination of a particular instance and possibly expand that to the population in general. So far all I'm getting is evasions and insults. What a surprise.

[reusrename]

85. Your refusal to face reality should not be construed as evasion from others.

I'd start there if I were you. Everyone is telling you basically the same exact answer. I tried to put it in terms that I think a 9-year-old would understand. You, however, accuse everyone else of being evasive and insulting.

You have already explained the causal link yourself. A gun sitting in the display case at the gun shop doesn't shoot someone. It mostly shoots someone after someone buys it.

[rrneck]

89. I'm getting the same exact wrong answer.

That is when I get an answer at all.

It mostly shoots someone after someone buys it.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

Why did they buy it?

[BainsBane]

106. You think an answer is wrong because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

so just don't ask. You obviously don't care about evidence, data, or the views of anyone who doesn't worship guns above everything else. So just give it up. If you have an argument to make, then do so, but expecting others to spoon feed you what you want to hear is ridiculous. You have never provided one bit of evidence on anything. Obviously evidence means nothing to you since you operate entirely on a faith-based level. Here you seek confirmation of that faith. It's sad. This is not something you should be seeking from strangers on a message board. It really is entirely your own issue.

[rrneck]

118. Are you asserting that

the number of guns in the United States are the cause of our high homicide rate? You seem to be asserting that.

Post #28
It doesn't change facts. The US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized west because of the insanity of gun proliferation.

I have repeatedly asked you for proof of that claim. You refuse to provide it.

Now, I hope you have some fresh hyperbole and insults prepared.

[krispos42]

87. In this case?

Probably not.


If Zimmerman had not been armed with a pistol, he probably would not have been able to kill Martin.


The converse, though... if Zimmerman did not have a pistol, would Zimmerman still be alive?


Maybe. Maybe even "probably".



This case is a single data point, though. The country is littered with people that are alive to day because they had gun when badness found them, and people that are dead because they didn't.




There is a line of argument made that guns "escalate" situations, but this is not qualified, so it is assumed to be automatically bad. That is a bad assumption to make.

Let me give an example:

Older man is walking to his car in a parking garage. Young man jumps him to steal his wallet and other valuables. The older man tries to defend himself but it unable to, and is left beaten and his valuable stolen. The condition of the older man may be anything from roughed up to badly injured to permanently disabled to dead.

Now, let's say the older man had a pistol. Young man jumps him intending to steal his wallet and other valuables, but the older man manages to draw and shoot the assailant. The assailant's injuries can range from slightly injured to badly injured to permanently disabled to dead, but, let's face it, it's more likely to lie on the serious side of the scale.

So, because gunshot wounds are more serious, generally speaking, than a beating, we can safely say that the gun introduced into the situation did indeed escalate the violence.

AND, we can also say that the innocent party was unharmed and the guilty party was stopped and, presumably, worked through the justice system.

So which outcome is better? Which is fairer?

Very few people will say that it would be better for the older man to have been beaten than for him to have shot his assailant. That, while being attacked, the older man should have realized that his assailant's live was just as valuable as his own and not done anything to risk harming his attacker.

There is a sense of justice involved.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. I don't need to, vigilantes chasing down burglary suspects is improper...

If you see a suspected burglar in your neighborhood, you call the cops, warn your neighbors if possible, and get yourself to a safe place. You don't chase them around with a knife, a pipe, an axe, a baseball bat, or a gun. Repeat after me... HUMAN LIFE IS MORE VALUABLE THAN PROPERTY. The fact that the NRA encourages people to act as vigilantes is what's improper here. The fact that they encourage people to use guns in the process doesn't make it any more or less improper.

[rrneck]

82. Yes, all prudent responses, and you are to be congratulated on your grasp of the obvious,

but your reply has nothing to do with what I asked. Are you sure you responded to the right post?

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

16. No one without a badge should be allowed to carry a weapon. nt

[BainsBane]

18. That is not the case

In all 50 states concealed carry is allowed, which is why nut jobs like Zimmerman kill innocent citizens.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

19. I know that is not the case. I just want it to be. nt

[BainsBane]

20. I'm with you on that

[bravenak]

51. Me too.nt

[kentuck]

23. BINGO!

And that is why they are so interested in this trial.

[BainsBane]

25. They love this trial

Zimmerman acted on their fantasies.

[HockeyMom]

26. Welcome to the World of the Non-Gun Owner

This is our fear every day. No, the solution is not MORE people carrying around guns, you gunners. We fear the "lawful gun carriers" as much, if not MORE, than the criminals.

[hack89]

41. And your irrational fear should be the basis of public policy?

don't think so.

[spin]

60. That may be the most foolish post I have ever read on DU. ...

However you have every right to your opinion.

I will agree that rarely a person with a carry license will misuse his weapon to cause a tragedy. Armed criminals will use their firearms to rape, rob and pillage on a far more frequent basis.

I will use Chicago as an example. Up to just recently it was illegal for an honest citizen to carry a firearm in Illinois. The shootings in Chicago which have drawn national attention are a result of criminal gangs fighting over turf. Unfortunately they not only kill other gang members, but all too often innocent people and children.

It now appears that concealed carry will be allowed on the streets of Chicago. Still I seriously doubt that many honest citizens who get carry permits will be involved in drive-by shootings.

I should add that I really don't believe that allowing honest citizens to carry will eliminate gang violence in Chicago. That is largely a police problem. Legalizing some drugs would probably be the most effective tactic in reducing this gun violence as it would take much of the profit motive out of dealing drugs.

[riverwalker]

29. if you walk around with a hammer

all the time,
you're gonna keep looking for a nail.

[BainsBane]

30. Exactly

For some reason that basic point escapes too many here.

[The Straight Story]

36. Hmmm on the decline in crime, from their own link:

Since the 1990s, however, crime in the United States has declined steeply. Several theories have been proposed to explain this decline:

The number of police officers increased considerably in the 1990s.

The prison population has been expanded since the mid-1970s.

Starting in the mid-1980s, the crack cocaine market grew rapidly before declining again a decade later. Some authors have pointed towards the link between violent crimes and crack use.

One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.

Changing demographics of an aging population has been cited for the drop in overall crime.

Another hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.

Three Strikes You're Out Laws were suggested during the 1992 election cycle and implemented immediately following.

-----

Did I miss the part about it being attributed to guns? Do guns CAUSE crime, or are there other factors (like, I dunno, People?)

From the other link they provided:

Still, unit gun sales seem to have gone up pretty explosively between 2005-10, doubling from around 5 million per year to 10 million per year. FBI background checks, a proxy for gun sales to individuals, have gone up too.

So I'm not sure what's going on. Gun sales to individuals seem like they've increased a fair amount over the past decade, but the number of households reporting gun ownership has decreased a bit.

[BainsBane]

37. Yes, you missed it

I don't know how. I would be surprised if you hadn't made that argument yourself. If guns don't reduce crime or protect you from crime, what is the point of having so many? Perhaps it just really is that people like to kill.

[The Straight Story]

39. There has to be a point?

Most I know that own them use them for hunting and sport shooting. Some have them in their home in case someone breaks in (not out of the realm where I live. Had police cruisers cruising around the hood at about 4am the other night looking for a suspect drugged out and only in boxers and told us to go back in the house. 3 cruisers here last night looking for someone).

1977 has one of the highest rates listed for gun owners (51% http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/ ) crimes that year were lower than the previous two and all since then up until 2009 ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm )
So what does that mean?

Maybe guns are not the big cause but economy, mental health issues, etc play the biggest part. I mean look at what others have said - they trust their fellow citizen with a gun IF they have a job that is from the Government. So does working for the government make one magically different? What if you used to and don't anymore, do you revert back to being a person who should not own one?

[LanternWaste]

44. The whole armed-citizen/citizen militia movement is made of idiots, misfits and nincompoops...

The whole armed-citizen/citizen militia movement seems to made up of little more than idiots, misfits and nincompoops... much like Zimmerman himself.

People I feel more comfortable being a quite a long ways away from them rather than as neighbors. But, as we can't practically choose our neighbors, we're often forced to live in the same neighborhoods as these sub-literate dullards.

[BainsBane]

48. Well we do have our virtual neighbors

who are very nearby.

[spin]

62. I agree with you however ...

you need to realize that not all gun owners belong to the "armed-citizen militia movement."

I have been target shooting handguns for 40 years and I have a carry permit and carry. I have no interest in joining a militia or the Tea Party.

I known a lot of gun owners through the years and let me assure you that not all are "sub-literate dullards." Many that I know are college educated professionals. Of course I live in a "gun friendly" state where firearm ownership is very common.

[bravenak]

53. I have a gun that somebody gave to me.

I threw the bullets away because I'm scared somebody might use it. I figure if somebody breaks in ill use it to scare them if they don't have a gun. And if they manage to get it from me, they can't kill me with it, and I can run away while they try to figure it out.
I dont want to sell it, cause I'm scared an idiot will buy it an use it on somebody. My gun has made me kinda irrational and paranoid.
And i know I'd never be able to kill somebody, but I'm scared that if I keep bullets in it somebody might die anyway.
I wish we would go back to sword fighting. I think guns are how humanity will end.

[BainsBane]

54. I'd say you might do better to turn it in

to a buyback program of some kind. If you're going to have a gun you should be able to handle it, and it doesn't sound like you're comfortable with that. I wouldn't be either.

[bravenak]

55. I live in Alaska so I don't know if they even have buy back programs. This state has the worst gun

Laws. Or the best depending on what you prefer. People out here are super gung ho about guns. I hate guns. I only took it cause I was worried the idiot that gave it to me might use it on somebody. Maybe I can send it to California and get a gift card for it. And buy some pepper spray.

[BainsBane]

56. I used to carry pepper spray

When I had to take the bus late at night. I never had to use it, but it made me feel better.

I don't think it's wise to send a gun through the mail.

[bravenak]

57. Ok.

I won't send it. But I will get some bear spray.

[Spirochete]

78. Thing is with these people

they have a $500 weapon burning a hole in their holster, and they're itching to get their money's worth, and use it on someone. If the "bad guy with a gun" fails to materialize, eventually they'll assign one.

[krispos42]

80. Gun ownership has fallen far less than the crime rate has

Of course, that's an inconvenient fact, so I don't expect you to address it.


I also don't expect you to address another inconvenient fact; namely, that "sporting use" gun sales have declined while "tactical" gun sales have climbed in the past few decades. With a larger proportion of guns out there orientated and optimized for killing people, it is quite mysterious that the crime rage has dropped. Care to explain it?

How about the number of states legalizing CCW in the past 25 years? Last time I checked, Illinois had just become the 50th state to allow concealed carry. The number of people legally carrying in public has gone up by an order of magnitude, maybe more. And yet... the overall crime rate it down, isn't it?



"Burglary is not punishable by death.
And yet Armed Citizen regularly celebrates the killing of burglars and other non-violent offenders."

People that kill burglars have no proof that they are non-violent; frequently quite the opposite it true. The blanket statement is wantonly, indeed breathtakingly, false. The person breaking into an occupied home is maybe a burglar, a kidnapper, or a rapist, or a combination of all three. This person may not be rational, and may be disinclined to leave behind eyewitnesses.

In addition, a person killing a burglar (a home intruder) is not doing the duty of government. He or she is ending a real and immediate threat to their person and their loved ones in the complete absence of agents of the government to act on his behalf.

Of course, you know this, don't you?

[BainsBane]

93. This is a column from the Huffington Post

I didn't write it. You could always send your comments to the author.

[krispos42]

95. But you're posting it, and supporting it.

So I'm addressing you.

I trust you have your own opinions on the matter and the ability to express them here.

[BainsBane]

97. Why, so you can't attack me?

You don't care about my opinions. You just want to validate your own. You don't need me for that. I'm tired of being the object for gunner performances of self justification. Nothing that I say has any impact on any of you. You deny facts, when presented evidence you make up excuses why you don't like that evidence. I've gone through this script hundreds of times. If you're actually interested in what I think, you can read my journal. But I know you're not. You're only interested in justifying your own world view. That really is your problem entirely.

You want to talk about the Walking Dead or something else, I'm game. I'm sick of being interrogated on gun policies by people who don't care about reason or evidence.

[krispos42]

99. So you don't want your stuff challenged?

Interesting place to post it then. This being a discussion board and all.

And if you keep re-posting stuff, opinions and incorrect statements you portray as "facts", you can expect it to be continually challenged. Especially when you leave the protected nest in GCRA.

You continually offer up insult-laden posts that, if positions were reversed, would be jury-locked almost immediately, then complain that you're tired of being the object of "gunners".

[BainsBane]

100. It's not my stuff, dude

If I'd written it, you would have a point, but I didn't. Insult laden posts? It's a column.
Gunners is the nicest term I could think of. Do you prefer gun nut or some other term?

[BainsBane]

101. Oh, you mean my posts would be hidden

if we were on a right-wing site like Free Republic? I'm sure you're right about that, but we aren't.

[BainsBane]

102. Also, you should know better than to write posts that long

so late at night. I don't even have the energy to read the thing.

[WovenGems]

110. Dodge City

That is the NRA fantasy.

[Recursion]

114. No, the Old West had pretty strict gun control

Though pointing that out kind of cuts both ways.