The Massad Ayoob Chronicles...Ingteresting reading.

[Logical]

Massad Ayoob is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor. I am sure most of the pro-gun people here have heard of him many times. He also is a expert witness for many CC shootings. This 6 part interview is very interesting about CC and legal issues.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/the-massad-ayoub-chronicles-part-i/

[one-eyed fat man]

1. Should be required reading

Someone here ought to especially pay attention to the comparison to pilots and their use of simulators for emergency training and the role of simunition training drills.

All the points he covers are part of any competent concealed carry instruction. Anyone who carries a gun for any lawful reason should have Ayoob's book.

In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection

[Logical]

3. I love that book but wish he would release a updated version....

since it was written in 1980. An updated version would sell like hotcakes.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. I wish he would too. Lots of laws have changed since then. N/T

[Euromutt]

101. He has, more or less

The Truth About Self-Protection was more or less intended to supplant In the Gravest Extreme. Problem is, that book was originally published in 1983...

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Great series of articles. N/T

[DWC]

4. Solid Info. Thanks! n/t

[Logical]

5. He is an interesting man. n-t

[Logical]

6. He also has training classes around the country. n-t

[Starboard Tack]

8. Great stuff. Very informative. VPC should hire this guy

Every person even thinking about CC permit should read this along with those that already have one. Should deter a lot from carrying, because if you even think about killing someone, you're going to be jumping through a lot of hoops, if not going down. One of the best anti toter post yet. Almost as good as VoteProgressive RIP

[rrneck]

9. If the VPC hired him

the universe would collapse on itself.

[Starboard Tack]

12. LOL

[Logical]

10. He is 100% pro-carry. Just wants people to make rational decisions. ????

[Starboard Tack]

13. I got that and after absorbing what he said I cannot imagine

any rational person wanting to carry. Thanks for posting it.

[Logical]

14. Well, you can carry and never use it. What is the downside of having it if you need it? n-t

[PavePusher]

15. Self-defense isn't "rational"?

Sigh....

[Starboard Tack]

31. Self defense is very rational. Please don't misquote me

Carrying a gun around in public is not rational. It is offensive.

[PavePusher]

33. Mine is defensive.

And yes, that's a deliberate pun, as well as being true.

If you take offense at my non-threatening defensive measures, I can only surmise that you do not care about my personal security. In which case your feelings about the issue are meaningless to me. Should you come up with a suggestion that affords me equal effectiveness, with no increase in personal risk, then you'd have a valid talking point.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Hey, each to his own. I don't lose sleep over it

I don't take personal offense to anyone carrying. It's not about me or you. It's a societal issue. Not my job to come up with solutions for you. You already made your choice. I'm just commenting. When I say toting is offensive, I mean to society as a whole, not me personally.

[PavePusher]

46. "When I say toting is offensive, I mean to society as a whole..."

Except that it very apparently... isn't.

You are perpetuating the fallacy that because it is your experience, it has been/can be/will be everyone's experience, a subset of the associational fallacy.

[Starboard Tack]

52. It is to everyone I've asked, excepting LE for some, but not all

I'll keep asking the question, though. Should be interesting, as I'm about to embark on a 10,000 mile road trip through 30 states. I'll be observing and asking.

[PavePusher]

56. Get it recorded if you can. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

57. Good idea. Maybe I will.

[rrneck]

60. When you ask about a hundred million people get back to us.

Oh wait that's been done. Some call them elections.

[Euromutt]

109. I'd have more respect for your claims if you were willing to commit to them

This whole appealing to what "society" ostensibly thinks while claiming to distance yourself from those opinions smells like an argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#populum) while tacitly acknowledging that your argument is so lousy you don't want to commit yourself to trying to defend it.

As far as I'm concerned, the day I'll feel compelled to give a shit what "society" thinks will come on the day that "society" takes responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones, and liability for failing to provide it.

[MicaelS]

35. "It is offensive." To whom, precisely?

Obviously to you since you complain about it. But, if a person is carrying CONCEALED, how do YOU know they're carrying? And the answer is YOU don't. What your statements really boils down to is the concealed carry is a personal behavior of others you personally find offensive. And like many authoritarians, you want to regulate the personal behavior of others.

[Starboard Tack]

40. See post 39

[rrneck]

44. Offensive to you.

You can't legislate morality.

[Starboard Tack]

55. No, but you can live it. Not everything is about legislation.

Sometimes it is about moral integrity and at the end of the day it's only yourself you have to answer to. I suspect that you don't carry because you would feel foolish. I know I would.

[rrneck]

59. What's your point?

If you're going to inspire people with your proselytizing you'll have to be more poetic than that.

How does getting people killed because of elitist legislation fit into your morality?

[Starboard Tack]

67. Don't think I mentioned anyone getting killed

Am I the kettle?

[rrneck]

68. Of course you didn't mention

people getting killed. Just like you didn't really own a gun. You merely implied as much. And.the implications of your position are much more obvious.

Would you advocate making the public carraige firearms illegal?

[Starboard Tack]

71. How many times do you have to ask the same question?

Once more. If current legislation continues to be ineffective and people continue to insist on carrying in public like the clown you posted about, then I see no other way. Yes, ban public carriage, with exceptions.

[rrneck]

72. Just making sure

your hypocritical position is clear for all to see.

Busted again.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

82. Please tell me what exactly you find hypocritical about my position

[rrneck]

84. Well maybe I was wrong.

You would legislate your lifestyle, morality, aesthetics, and ego while at the same time risking the economic well-being, conscience, personal expression, and self respect of millions of people.

Actually it's more like arrogant elitist sanctimonious hypocrisy.

[Starboard Tack]

87. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to insinuate

Because I have a different opinion on gun legislation, you feel the need to insult me? I'm trying to figure out how we can all live together in some kind of harmony without resorting to carrying guns around. If you think that's being hypocritical, so be it. Makes no sense to me.

[rrneck]

89. *sigh*

You say you want to make public carry illegal (with restrictions as if that matters).

Unfortunately, the only reason you are able to produce to support your desire for legislation that will impact the lives of millions of people are some vague references to "offensive uncivilized behavior" and "foolish embarrassment ". And you've been pretty mendacious in the process.

You cannot legislate your personal preferences. Your desire to do so reveals an arrogant elitism that is very unbecoming.

[Starboard Tack]

90. How am I being mendacious? What lies have I told?

[oneshooter]

92. Many......

By implying that you owned a "double barrel shotgun" when it was only a flare gun.

By deliberately misquoting others posts.

By claiming to own several handguns.

By claiming not to support confiscation, then supporting UK style laws.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

93. Wrong. I have owned several double barrel shotguns. Just not right now

What posts have I deliberately misquoted? Show me. Never claimed to own several handguns, just two pistols. You assumed they were what you consider "real" maybe. Trust me, they are very real and have a very legitimate purpose. Supporting UK laws does not imply confiscation. It implies common sense.

[Straw Man]

94. It gets deeper.

Never claimed to own several handguns, just two pistols. You assumed they were what you consider "real" maybe.

Can you say "disingenuous"? I knew that you could. Trying to pretend that the above was not deliberately deceptive is... deceptive.

Supporting UK laws does not imply confiscation. It implies common sense.

The UK achieved their "common sense" through confiscation. How do you propose to achieve yours?

You're just playing silly games with words now. You no longer have any shred of credibility, nor are you entitled to any assumption of good faith. You are aware that "sophistry" is pejorative, right?

[Starboard Tack]

95. Certainly nowhere near as deceptive as CC

The deception was in your mind, not mine. I only claimed that I kept 2 pistols at home for emergency use only. I never implied anything else. Don't complain when your presumptions fail you.

I claim no entitlements. What are your problems with UK gun laws?

[Straw Man]

96. Keep piling it on...

I refer to my previous message. No one, repeat no one, hears the word "pistol" and doesn't think of the kind that shoots bullets unless informed otherwise. These are not my presumptions: they are everyone's. Words have meanings and common usages. There are guns, and there are flare guns. You didn't refer to them as flare guns because you wanted to pass yourself off as a gun owner. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and deceptive, yet you persist with your transparent charade.

Among the entitlements you don't claim is the one to be taken at all seriously. Sophistry is not your friend.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Some states, like NJ consider flare guns to be firearms

I also think they would deter 99% of miscreants. They are not everyone's presumptions. Only in your world. You want to fight fire with fire by using guns against would be foes and you want to use deception by carrying concealed, but you have trouble handling a little word play.
To be taken seriously is not my decision or entitlement. Why would I expect you or any pro toter to take me seriously? You want proliferation of guns. I want serious reduction. The discussion is more important to me than the goal. The more time you spend here, the less time you get to tote. Baby steps.

[PavePusher]

98. Oy, vey....

1. "Some states, like NJ consider flare guns to be firearms"

NJ considers a lever-action .22 rifle to be an "assault weapon" worthy of being banned. Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on.


2. "I also think they would deter 99% of miscreants."

I sincerely hope you never have to find out, because a. I hate to see anyone the victim of threats of violence, and b. I don't think that will work anywhere close to as well as you think it will, and that makes me concerned for your safety.


3. "You want to fight fire with fire by using guns against would be foes..."

What, I should use pillows against 'em? But in all seriousness, why should I not use overwhelming force?


4. "...and you want to use deception by carrying concealed..."

Ummm, what's wrong with deception against criminals? I don't see what the problem is here.... Moot to me 'cause I usually open carry, but my guess is you'll rail against that as well.


5. "You want proliferation of guns."

Nope, we want freedom of choice. You apparently don't.

[Starboard Tack]

99. I'm a lot more comfortable with OC

The deception of CC is against everyone, not just criminals. When you open carry, you give the rest of us the freedom of choice to stay or distance ourselves. I don't want to take away reasonable choices. If guns are to remain legal, everyone,including so-called "bad guys" should have the right to carry openly. If the 2A gets amended as I believe it should, then you should still have the choice to own a gun, but hopefully not in the public arena.

[Straw Man]

100. Tell it to the state legislatures.

The deception of CC is against everyone, not just criminals.

Open carry is illegal in many states. Surely you don't expect gun owners to break state laws in order to conform to your peculiar sense of ethics.

If guns are to remain legal, everyone,including so-called "bad guys" should have the right to carry openly.

So you are in favor of firearms ownership for convicted felons and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill? I'm not.

[oneshooter]

102. New Jersey consider Daisy BB guns as firearms. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

104. There you go. UK considers replicas of guns firearms.

Of course, one state isn't going to make much difference if you can buy without any screening in another state or on the internet. Obviously, any gun legislation should be federal, with local restrictions regarding carrying.

[Straw Man]

105. Which is, of course, ludicrous.

As is your claim that your flare guns are "pistols" in the conventional sense -- the only sense that applies, since you didn't specify.

Do a little homework. You cannot buy on the Internet without screening. All Internet sales must go through a Federal Firearms License holder, who will run a NICS check before turning the firearm over to you.

While we're on the subject -- did it occur to you that perhaps your flare guns were not firearms when you were able to purchase them without a NICS check?

[Starboard Tack]

107. I only learnt here about buying and selling on the internet

Regarding the flare guns, they came with the boat, but they sell them at marine stores everywhere. Very good to have.

[oneshooter]

106. Here it is.

My original post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x314808


Your post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=400689&mesg_id=401438

Starboard Tack (794 posts) Wed Apr-13-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. Nice try to turn it around
No emotionalism in running out and buying a gun out of fear. No emotionalism in grown men whining about needing to carry a gun around to fend off young guys with clubs and big muscles. No emotionalism in brandishing a gun at some youths who look at your tools the wrong way. All "logical" reasons I've seen here.
Fear is the most fundamental emotion and the easiest to peddle. I fear for those who lap that shit up, not for myself.
This is an issue of common sense and morality and has been hijacked by right wing fear mongers peddling their instruments of death and destruction to the bleaters.


Your second post.

Starboard Tack (794 posts) Thu Apr-14-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. I trusted you would be reading it so I wouldn't have to name you
Your tools are definitely worth killing for. Good luck with that.
You gotta love Texas. Do they still hang horse thieves? Don't think so.
Keep it real.

It was a deliberate misquote of my original post.

You have no shame, no morals, and no conscience.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

103. Just a quick search reveals this:

I didn't have time for an extensive sophistry search. I have more important things to do like take out the trash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=400104&mesg_id=401772
I leave my gun at home

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=399373&mesg_id=399479
OK I smoke and I own guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=399373&mesg_id=399796
The only banning I endorse is the carrying in public

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=399373&mesg_id=400296
I totally endorse UK style laws.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=398062
And I do not dislike guns for the 100th time. I own two.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=398145
Guns are a fact of life in this country

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399046
I'm not suggesting any specific legislation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399067
Absolutely. Ban assault weapons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399231
I am a gun owner,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399476
Bottom line, I would prefer civilian ownership restricted to shotguns (max. 2 barrels), no pumps. Rifles with no auto and 10 round max.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399712
I have no interest in convincing anybody of anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=397413&mesg_id=399105
I don't know what I proposed that is in any way Draconian.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=394513&mesg_id=394534
rl6214 Wed Mar-23-11 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. So you are willing to let happen to Pres Obama the same

as what happened to the Democrat party after the AWB debacle in 94?

You're willing to take that chance?

Starboard Tack Donating Member (792 posts) Wed Mar-23-11 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Absolutely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=392628&mesg_id=393817
I don't think legislation is the answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=394513&mesg_id=394709
Handguns are debatable and definitely unacceptable in certain environments, like classrooms. I keep 2 at home, where they belong, for emergencies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=392628&mesg_id=392895
I leave my gun at home where it belongs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=392628&mesg_id=393880
I'm not a gun flasher. I keep my guns for real emergencies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=392628&mesg_id=392981
Any legislator who supports guns in classrooms will never get my vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=395522&mesg_id=395663
I don't have a gun-ban agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=395522&mesg_id=396141
Personally I would not choose a firearm unless attacked by someone using a firearm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=395782&mesg_id=395930
The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended

Yeah, yeah, yeah we're all just spitballing here and you might change your mind at a moments notice. You claim to want to learn yet you avoid all the evidence presented to you. You claim to not have an agenda or a settled opinion but you trot one out pretty quickly when you think you need to. You only own a flare gun and you only referred to a flare gun as a gun or a firearm in a forum dedicated to firearms in the commonly used sense of the word. You are talking to a room full of people who own firearms and are all understood to be referring to firearms - not fucking flare guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
Lying by omission

One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.

Funny thing about these forums. We actually are all just spitballing here. It is just a discussion forum after all. It's like a big cocktail party. A bunch of people milling around talking about stuff. Most are pretty average. There will be a few boors, a few unruly kids, a few self involved jerks, and a liar or two out to score rhetorical points any way he can. If you stay at the party long enough you learn a lot about people without getting any details, and I think we have a pretty good idea about you.

Do you have a firearm free self defense solution adequate to replace the firearms you would deny people?

[slackmaster]

74. Being offended by other peoples' personal choices is itself a choice

You have chosen poorly, but it is your right to do so.

[Straw Man]

17. I can't imagine...

...how you arrived at that conclusion. Are you saying that if the worst happened and your life was imperiled, you would rather die than deal with the aftermath of using lethal force? That may be admirable in the abstract (dedicated pacifism), but I don't know that I would call it rational.

CCW is not about Rambo fantasies. Mas Ayoob is a well-known and well-respected figure among CCW proponents.

[Starboard Tack]

32. I am not trying to discredit Ayoob. On the contrary.

I am not a dedicated pacifist. I find living in constant fear of being attacked by someone irrational and feeding that fear by toting a gun even more irrational.
Look, if it's legal, nobody's stopping you. It's your life.
I'm not saying I would rather die than defend myself. I would defend myself with or without a gun, to the best of my ability and deal with the aftermath. Guns are not the only means.

[PavePusher]

34. You keep accusing us of "living in... fear".

Yet you have provided no rational basis for that accusation.

[Starboard Tack]

42. If you're not afraid or insecure, then why carry a gun around? For fun?

I recommend searching for less extreme remedies for feelings of insecurity. Nothing personal, as I don't know you, but some people that I do know have suffered from irrational fear, anxiety and feelings of insecurity and have successfully sought remedy through various types of group counseling and therapy. Guns are not the answer.

[PavePusher]

47. This has been explained to you many times.

Another branch of associational fallacy on your part.

[Straw Man]

63. If you're not afraid or insecure, then why do you keep guns in the home?

You have referred to your handguns, which you keep in case of "extreme emergency." (Or was it a double-barreled 12-gauge? I sometimes have trouble keeping the facts straight.) Nothing personal, but some people I know suffer from irrational fears and anxieties that only seem to afflict them when they are at home. They seem to respond well to therapy and getting out a little more.

[Euromutt]

108. It's your claim, you provide the evidence

At present, you're just employing an argument from ignorance/incredulity, by refusing to accept that there might be another reason than being "afraid or insecure."

Then there's the fact that you attach a value judgment to this condition, describing it as "irrational" to "live in constant fear of being attacked." Do you regard someone who fastens his seat belt whenever traveling in a motor vehicle to be irrational, "living in constant fear" of being involved in a motor vehicle collision? Because the principle is the same: in both cases, one is preparing oneself for an eventuality that may not happen, indeed, is more likely not to happen than that it will happen. You can argue that the risk of becoming the victim of a violent crime is significantly smaller than the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle collision, and you'd be right, but the distinction remains purely one of degree. That is, you can legitimately argue that a person who chooses to carry has made an incorrect assessment of risks versus benefits, but to dismiss the practice entirely as "irrational" just doesn't fly.

[benEzra]

20. A whole lot of us who CC consider Mr. Ayoob a mentor.

I agree that carrying is a big responsibility, and a choice that should be considered carefully and honestly. I do not, however, understand how one can infer "carry is irrational" from an extended pro-carry interview with one of the most well-respected CCW advocates and trainers in the United States. I'd be interested in hearing your expound this a little.

[Starboard Tack]

37. I didn't infer that "carry is irrational" from his interview

It reinforced my existing position, which is about ordinary people in ordinary daily life walking around with concealed guns. It is a good interview and very important for those who decide to carry. But that doesn't make carrying rational IMO.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. so then, you rationalize away from the survival instinct...?

the instinct to survive is not strong with you...?

:shrug:

on edit:

also, another question

do you think that if you would ever be put in an Instanteous Moment that you could actually process enough to Rationalize over Instinct...?

one moment in time...NOW. Die or Die trying.

[rrneck]

22. He doesn't need it.

Rich people don't have to worry about stuff like that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. hmmm,,, did not know he is rich ...but -- still in THE MOMENT

if it comes down to: KILL or BE KILLED -- would his money matter?

money would be the furthest thing from my mind and perhaps might even be the cause of why he could be put in the position of having to decide. If, in deed, he even has the time to decide his fate. Things can happen so lightning fast, that knee-jerk reaction for example.

I freely admit that the survival instinct and the Will to Live is very strong in me and I do not even attempt to "rationalize" it away.

[rrneck]

25. It seems to me

that a large part of the reason the Democratic party has had such a hard time in the last thirty years is that there are too many upscale Democrats. The front line if the class war eats its way up from the bottom and we won't generate any real political will until they lose their money.

Most of the time if somebody sees no need for self defense it's because their property values keep them safe.

It's not really about guns. It's about political self awareness and social justice.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. yes, I tend to agree

I find it all interesting that we as a "civilized" society can rationalize away our survival instinct.

Sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I am not sure that I want to be that "evolved"

Obviously, I need more money ;)

I have to admit that even though I don't live in a gated community. I have used my land and rural environment as a way of insulating myself against as many dangers as possible (I feel safer in the woods, although I know a lot of people are scared of them) but, at least I admit it and know that it is my survival instinct and will to live that causes me to make these decisions.

seems kind of hypocritical(dishonest, even) to not recognize and accept it.

don't know why I am so philosophical this morning.

Not sure I am making sense to anyone but me.

edited for clarity, if that is possible.

[rrneck]

27. It makes sense.

Having property doesn't keep one from being a liberal. Using wealth to reduce others civil rights for ones own personal comfort is a Republican specialty.

The attitude "If your lifestyle isn't like mine there must be something wrong with you so we'll make dealing with your life circumstances illegal" sort of pisses me off

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. It would be nice to educate people away from that tendency --

I can see where it could be argued that is in of itself just another variation of the survival instinct.

[rrneck]

29. Yep.

I think we become wedded to ideas as easily as we become wedded to stuff. There is always a need to defend one's turf and to band together to defend collective turf. When people lose the stuff they are more willing to band together to get it back. I guess it works the same way for ideas. A lot of lives have been lost on the altar of ideology.

It seems we just don't know how to manage abundance. Capitalism is the best we have come up with so far to do that and it ain't working so well. I think our species was actually designed to manage scarcity and all this stuff just screws us up. Maybe even our wealth of ideas is screwing us up too. I've been thinking about the word "anomie" lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie
Anomie is a sociological term meaning "personal feeling of a lack of social norms; normlessness". It describes the breakdown of social norms and values.<1> It was popularized by French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his influential book Suicide (1897). Durkheim borrowed the word from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau.

For Durkheim, anomie arises more generally from a mismatch between personal or group standards and wider social standards, or from the lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations. This is a nurtured condition:

Anomie in common parlance is thought to mean something like "at loose ends". The Oxford English Dictionary lists a range of definitions, beginning with a disregard of divine law, through the 19th and 20th century sociological terms meaning an absence of accepted social standards or values. Most sociologists associate the term with Durkheim, who used the concept to speak of the ways in which an individual's actions are matched, or integrated, with a system of social norms and practices ... Durkheim also formally posited anomie as a mismatch, not simply as the absence of norms. Thus, a society with too much rigidity and little individual discretion could also produce a kind of anomie, a mismatch between individual circumstances and larger social mores. Thus, fatalistic suicide arises when a person is too rule-governed, when there is ... no free horizon of expectation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. interesting post and thanks for the link. I tend to agree with you

especially with this:

"I think our species was actually designed to manage scarcity."

also, I need to think about this phrase:

"no free horizon of expectation."

yeah, I need to ponder that one.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. We evolved as small tribe socialists.

In our hunter-gatherer days the typical nomadic village was about 100 to 200 people, all ages included. At that scale with everybody knowing everybody socialism works extremely well. Peer pressure is able to take care of the cheats. But when a society become so large that we have many anonymous dealings then regulated capitalism works best. Pure capitalism would be a nightmare as it would lead to an absolute dictatorship.

[rrneck]

41. Yep.

We seem to lack a way to create artificial scarcity. Capitalism lives to generate abundance even where there is none. I guess I should actually read Marx. :)

[PavePusher]

48. "We seem to lack a way to create artificial scarcity."

My Snark-o-meter is smoking and vibrating, with the needle bending the max scale pin... and yes, now it has exploded.

Well played.

[Starboard Tack]

38. My survival instinct is very strong. Toting a gun is not part of the "how"

I have experienced many of those "instantaneous moments" and instinct prevailed. I survived, nobody died. I could almost guarantee the opposite outcome, if I had been armed. There were times that I truly wished I had been, but instinctively drew on other, less lethal resources. And no, I am not a martial artist. I always found common sense and reality testing the best tools. But there are lots of non lethal self defense tools available.

[Logical]

43. So, you are saying there is never a need in situations where a citizen needs a gun? Or that.....

CC laws cause more issues than they solve?

[Starboard Tack]

45. No, I'm not saying there is never a need for a gun. Just in public

In fact the more guns carried are likely to increase the number of those situations IMO.
I find CC laws devious, elitist, anti-social, uncivilized, unnecessary and inherently dihonest. They solve nothing, other than assuaging some people's fear of their fellow citizens.

[PavePusher]

49. Several logical/factual errors here.

1. "No, I'm not saying there is never a need for a gun. Just in public"

You imply that there is no crime in public places that requires effective, efficient self-defense. This is patently untrue. I presume you have access to news sources, since you obviously have internet access.


2. "In fact the more guns carried are likely to increase the number of those situations IMO."

Assuming you mean carried in a legal manner, for legal purposes (that is what the debate is about...), then it should be a simple matter to find the data, and post it for everyone to peruse. Since no-one before you has managed this feat, I don't think you will have much success. But we certainly welcome you to try. If the data support your assumption, it can not be summarily dismissed.



3. "I find CC laws devious, elitist, anti-social, uncivilized, unnecessary and inherently dihonest."

Wow. A very broad-brush indictment of a set of laws intended to provide some guidelines for self-defense. And, indirectly, an accusation against those who abide by and utilise such laws. Perhaps I'm missing something and you can furthar elaborate?


4. "They solve nothing..."

1.5 million recorded violent crimes per year. 750K-2.5M estimated uses per year of firearms in self-defense. There seems to be a factual basis for their use.



5. "...other than assuaging some people's fear of their fellow citizens."

I think the appropriate word for most carriers here is not "fear", but "concern". They may overlap somewhat, but are two distinctive ideas. Edit: And the other word would not be "their fellow citizens" (implying everyone), but "criminals", narrowing down the group the concern is directed towards. Otherwise you imply that we are all sociopaths.

[Starboard Tack]

53. "Otherwise you imply that we are all sociopaths."

No, not all. But many possibly are. If it walks like a duck, chances are...

[Logical]

50. Then you need to research more and compare defensive gun uses to issues with CCW issues.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Will my research change the fact that citizens are arming themselves

in the streets? Do you suggest everyone do that, just in case? Is that the world you want to live in? Not me. I'll take my chances, seems to be working fine so far. I met with several friends, from all different walks of life, and different political persuasions, over the last few weeks and told them about this forum. Every single one was flabbergasted when I told them about the proliferation of CC. Most people are completely unaware that it's happening, as I was till I came here. What an education.
You need to research and practice non lethal ways to defend yourself, if you genuinely feel in danger of others.
This whole discussion really isn't about guns. It's about a mindset.

[Logical]

58. No, I wish no one needed to be armed. But it is just a fact of life. Read the....

link to the Harpers article. I think it might provide you with both sides.

[Starboard Tack]

64. No it isn't a fact of life. You choose to be armed. I read it

[Straw Man]

62. Yet you own guns.

Will my research change the fact that citizens are arming themselves

in the streets? Do you suggest everyone do that, just in case? Is that the world you want to live in? Not me. I'll take my chances, seems to be working fine so far.

You seem to have some mysterious set of life circumstances in which you are more endangered in your own home than you are in public. Without calling upon you to explain this since it is in fact none of my business, let me suggest that you have attended to your own particular needs and should probably leave it at that, without presuming to tell others how they ought to attend -- or not attend -- to theirs.

You need to research and practice non lethal ways to defend yourself, if you genuinely feel in danger of others.

These non-lethal ways of defending yourself: do they not work in the home? If they do, why do you still own guns?

This whole discussion really isn't about guns. It's about a mindset.

It is indeed about a mindset: the mindset by which you seem to feel justified in telling people how they should live their lives when you really know nothing about their circumstances. Allow me to suggest that you either practice what you preach by getting rid of your guns or give up the preaching.

[Starboard Tack]

65. The guns I have are for personal safety and are mandatory

They shoot flares, not people, but in a pinch I would. Hope that clarifies some. I'd look pretty damn silly walking down main street with a 12 gauge flare gun.

[rrneck]

66. Ah.

So you have been claiming to be a gun owner (in the commonly understood sense of the term) while you really only have a flare gun.

What a pack of sophistry.

[Starboard Tack]

69. You may call it sophistry. Ask the pirate that when he get's lit up

To defend yourself or your pov you should use whatever is available to you at the time. I won't be taking it on the road with me, but I will take my sophistry, which when needed, works very well.

[rrneck]

70. Such blistreing hypocracy.

You would hold others to your standard of self defense methods but when it comes to your own behavior all's fair eh?

Busted again.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

79. Thank you. I admit to a little hypocrisy, do you?

Or will you always be the pot and me the kettle?

[rrneck]

83. Life death and social justice or more than a little. nt

[Starboard Tack]

85. Meaning what? Why are you being so obtuse? And belligerent

[rrneck]

86. " whatever is available to you at the time"

And you would presume to decide what is available. Aren't you dizzy yet?

[Starboard Tack]

88. Are you trying to make me dizzy?

[Straw Man]

76. "get's [sic] lit up"?

What kind of Rambo fantasy is this?

[rrneck]

78. Shhhh. He's entitled.

The rest of us are held to a higher standard.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Sorry, it was an attempt at humor. You know, puns and all that.

Apparently not appreciated. Boy you guys are so serious all the time.

[Straw Man]

73. Correction.

The guns I have are for personal safety and are mandatory

They shoot flares, not people, but in a pinch I would.

Perhaps you meant to say, "They shoot flares, not bullets." I would strongly recommend against using a flare gun for defense. First of all, you'd be using an incendiary round in an anti-personnel application, which is considered inhumane even in wartime. Secondly, you would be creating an extreme risk of fire if you used it in an enclosed space or near any flammable substances such as may be found on the boat you apparently live on.

BTW, your credibility just went out the window with all your cryptic comments about your guns being for emergencies, "haven't needed them," not bought from gun dealers, haven't lived "under a roof," etc. "Hope that clarifies some"? Why would you suddenly want to do that? You've been quite happy to obfuscate and misrepresent up to now.

[oneshooter]

75. Not the first time you have lied on this board. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. And if someone is unaware of and not personally harmed by CC, do they have any cause to object?

If you wish to denounce the pratice, feel free to do so.

If you claim the practice is harmful, demonstrate the harm- and no, "it offends my sensibilities" doesn't count...

[Starboard Tack]

91. Is offending others sensibilities something you find civilized behavior?

[jeepnstein]

110. It's impossible...

to not offends the sensibilities of some. They go around thinking their feelings really are important. If they aren't offended then nobody is noticing them. It's almost as if their own self-actualization is a matter of national importance. "I am important and you will respect my feelings, or else." It's a self-centered view of the world that typically makes people and political movements a laughing stock.

If I didn't know better some people actually go out of their way to get their all-important sensibilities offended. They sure spend enough time nosing into my business looking for any sign of non-conformity with their world view. When they go around saying they are "progressive" and at the same time demanding conformity with their personal standards they come off as a bit odd.

[Starboard Tack]

112. What has a gun free society got to do with conforming to personal standards?

What is progressive about carrying a gun? This isn't about personal stand.ards, it's about the betterment of society. Guns have there places, just like golf clubs and baseball bats. None of which belong on the streets, or in churches and classrooms.

[jeepnstein]

113. Not in my community.

What makes your standards any more valid than mine? Are you somehow more important than me? What makes you think you're right all the time? If you don't want to carry a gun then fine, don't do it. More power to you. I prefer to have the freedom of making that choice for myself.

[Starboard Tack]

114. If your community says it's OK, that's fine.

It isn't about individuals, it's about society. We get to choose where we live. I think each town should be able to regulate according to the wishes of it's citizens. What's wrong with that.
Pro-gunners always talk about personal rights and freedoms. What about society's rights? If the nation decides to revoke or amend 2A, so be it. If it decides to keep it, so be it. We, as individuals, have to deal with that. Life goes on.
My standards are not much different from yours. We just make different choices. Nothing wrong with that.

[jeepnstein]

116. Really?

You constantly carry on about how my carrying a concealed weapon somehow endangers society and it's rights. Society doesn't have any rights. Individuals have rights. If you were carrying on about how society has a "right" to regulate other kinds of behavior, like certain kinds of marriage, you'd be run out of DU on a rail. As long as I obey the law my right to be armed should not even be up for discussion.

What I carry around in my pockets is no more society's business than what I read or how I pray.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. +1 Well said n/t

[Starboard Tack]

120. If it isn't up for discussion then why are we discussing it?

Seems like the world is all about you and society (other people) don't count as long as you get to tote you guns around. Very civilized. Sorry, but it is in society's interest to decide where, when and if individuals have the right to carry killing tools around.
How you pray, what you read, smoke or who you marry have no relevance to this discussion, just as deaths due to auto accidents have no relation to gun deaths. Gun toters will reach for anything in a desperate attempt to justify their grossly uncivilized behavior.

[jeepnstein]

123. Uncivilized?

Who says I'm uncivilized? You are trying to impose your version of morality and civility on me. My viewpoint is ever bit as valid as yours. As long as I cause no harm I should be free in the exercise of my civil rights. I see some people don't agree. I wonder what other rights you would deny me because you deem it offensive?

[Starboard Tack]

125. I don't say you are uncivilized, but you may demonstrate it by your behavior.

That's the choice you make. I am not trying to impose anything on anyone, I'm just speaking my mind. Your viewpoint may be valid in terms of your 1A rights, but that does not mean it has any merit.
I would never deny anyone their rights, as long as they are rights. That's what the conversation is about.
I find it interesting that most toters think this discussion is all about denying them, as individuals, their so-called rights. It isn't. It's about how to improve our society, while endeavoring to pretect the rights of the individual.

[Straw Man]

126. Yes, you did.

Right here:

Gun toters will reach for anything in a desperate attempt to justify their grossly uncivilized behavior.

I find it interesting that most toters think this discussion is all about denying them, as individuals, their so-called rights. It isn't. It's about how to improve our society, while endeavoring to pretect the rights of the individual.

So is it or isn't it about the rights of the individual? Are you suggesting that individual rights are all well and good as long as individuals don't expect to use them?

[jeepnstein]

127. Know Your Rights, All Three of Em...

http://youtu.be/nPeWSpB_7w4

[Starboard Tack]

129. Nope. I said the behavior is uncivilized, not a specific individual.

Gun toters, as a group exhibit uncivilized behavior by toting in public. What's confusing about that?

I am saying that individual rights are fine unless they infringe on society's rights. The collective rights trump any individual rights. That's why we have laws like noise abatement, no smoking zones, no talking areas etc.

Toters seem to believe that 2A trumps everything else. That view is distorted and selfish and the biggest reason to repeal/amend 2A. In essence they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[rrneck]

130. What qualifies you as arbiter of civilized behaivor? nt

[Starboard Tack]

131. I dunno, what do you think?

Do you really want to go on that merry-go-round again? Look up what I told you the last time. Still stands.

[rrneck]

133. You haven't answered the question yet.

Cough up a link or an answer.

[Starboard Tack]

136. Same answer. I am not the arbiter of civilized behavior.

Never claimed to be. Civilized behavior, by definition should need no arbitration. It should be obvious that war is not a civilized state of affairs. Ergo, carrying weapons of war in peacetime in civilian neighborhoods can be easily construed as uncivilized behavior. Is it so hard to grasp that?

[rrneck]

138. Well...

"I am not the arbiter of civilized behavior."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=399373&mesg_id=399778
I consider it uncivilized and unhealthy behavior which I think should be discouraged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=401367&mesg_id=401569
As offensive and uncivilized as open carry is,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402502&mesg_id=402996
I find CC laws devious, elitist, anti-social, uncivilized, unnecessary and inherently dihonest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402502&mesg_id=404676
Gun toters will reach for anything in a desperate attempt to justify their grossly uncivilized behavior.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402502&mesg_id=404800
I don't say you are uncivilized, but you may demonstrate it by your behavior.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402502&mesg_id=404908
I said the behavior is uncivilized, not a specific individual.

Your own words lead us to believe you think you are. What do you think defines civilized behavior?

[Starboard Tack]

137. Maybe this will help

civilized, civilised <ˈsɪvɪˌlaɪzd>
adj
1. having a high state of culture and social development
2. cultured; polite everything had been done in a civilized manner

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[rrneck]

139. Explain how

wearing a sidearm makes civilized behavior impossible.

[Starboard Tack]

140. It doesn't make it impossible

Can you explain how it makes it better?

[rrneck]

141. Nice dodge.

Care to try again before you get busted? These weak attempts to turn a question with a question are pretty transparent. You have asserted that firearms in public are uncivilized. You have offered a definition of civilized behavior. Support your assertion.

[Starboard Tack]

142. Busted for what? I try to be transparent. What's wrong with that?

I have asserted that carrying firearms in public is uncivilized behavior. Yes. Am I not allowed an opinion? If you disagree, that's your prerogative. Apparently, we define civilized behavior differently. Please explain how you perceive it as civilized.

[rrneck]

143. So

it's not always uncivilized or it's just an opinion and your feelings are on the verge of getting hurt now. Predictable.

You have asserted that carrying firearms in public is uncivilized behaivor and that assertion is usually followed by an insult. We have all read it. It's no secret. Support your assertion. If you can't do that it will be obvious that everything you have said on the subject is a pile if self serving sanctimonious bullshit. You are busted and you are making a fool of yourself.

Try not to depend too much on rules against calling you a liar. It doesn't have to be said to be obvious.

[Starboard Tack]

144. If you or others perceive me as a fool or a liar, so be it

That's not my problem and my feelings are not hurt. This isn't about feelings. It's about having a debate about a serious issue. There's a lot of bullying, in this forum, of anyone who appears to challenge the 2A in any way. If all the so-called anti's are chased away, what's the point? It just becomes a circle jerk.

[rrneck]

145. Then you lose.

Every time you get get cornered you play the victim. Every word you have said is worthless here. You have yet to make a case at all, much less a good one. Support your assertions or turn off the computer and get out of your mother's basement.

[Starboard Tack]

146. Lose what? Cornered how and by whom?

I am not your prey and am not in any contest. If you want to address the issue of the uncivilized nature of carrying weapons in public, feel free. I haven't seen your case supporting it.
I've made my case. If you wish to dismiss it out of hand then we have nothing to discuss. Why should I feel like a victim? Victim of what? Uncivil discourse? I think not.

[rrneck]

147. Bullshit

Put up or shut up. Cough up a link that makes your case. Nobody gives a fuck about your opinion unless you back it up with something. The more you squirm the more guns you sell. Why don't you have the help make your case for you, they probably do everything else.

You can run but you can't hide.

Prove something.

[rrneck]

135. There is a question pending

regarding your qualifications to be an arbiter of civilized behavior. Can you produce them or some insight into your understanding of exactly what civilized behavior is?

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. "I think each town should be able to regulate according to the wishes of it's citizens."

And that very philosophy was (and is) used to defend Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegnation laws, bans on abortions, restrictions on

certain religious groups and practices, anti-sodomy laws, and the Defense Of Marriage Act.


I will never accept that as a legitimate restriction on personal behavior.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Nice obfuscation

The huge difference is that your behave is threatening to society as a whole, not to a minority group. Your actions are offensive because you choose to carry lethal weapons around, which in itself encourages others to engage in similar anti-social behavior. Guns are implements of war and carrying them in public is barbaric, not to mention ridiculous in any modern society. Such behavior ultimately risks the loss of privileges for those who own and use guns for legitimate reasons like hunting and sport. Very selfish.

[oneshooter]

119. You keep to your "standards" no matter how low they go. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

122. Does insulting me always make you feel better?

My standards may be low in your opinion, but at least I have standards, as well as a social conscience. I actually consider other people besides myself and I don't cower to bullies. And I don't need a gun to protect my "tools".

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

128. My tools are my livelihood. With out them I can not

feed my family. It is apparently your thoughts that I should give that up to a couple of armed thieves.

May it never happen to you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

132. Do you deny that you lied about my post?

[rrneck]

134. Can you imagine him admitting anything? nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. and that is fine for you ...but, do you advocate legislating away

other people's right to choose to invoke their rights as legally applied under 2A?

do you think that toting a gun automatically implies that the person is fearful, without common sense and/or out of touch with reality?

[GreenStormCloud]

61. You have been lucky. So have I. May your good luck continue.

I refuse to trust to luck.

[benEzra]

19. They should. And then they should listen to him.

And yes, I own an old copy of In the Gravest Extreme and re-read it every couple of years. They cover this info in CHL classes, but Mr. Ayoob is IMO one of the best teachers out there.

[spin]

11. K&R (n/t)

[PavePusher]

16. I like how he deftly disposed of the extended magazine question. n/t

[benEzra]

18. Excellent article, thanks. (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. K&R, btw.

[RamboLiberal]

80. Always enjoy reading Ayoob - thanks for posting

[jeepnstein]

111. Ayoob's writings helped shape...

my philosophy of self defense. I view carrying a firearm more of a serious responsibility than some kind of frivolous fashion accessory. His writings have shaped the way I choose a firearm, ammo, and certainly the way I shoot. "In the Gravest Extreme" is required reading, as far as I'm concerned, for anyone considering buying a firearm for self defense.

[Logical]

115. I agree, he is great about combating the "Rambo" image of CCW. n/t