In response to a barrage of hostility she received from some of our very own pro-gun commenters, she had this to say.
Apparently, it is just a little too difficult to assess the situation before you jump in.
Which is, ironically, one of the main reasons that I do not think most people need to be hauling their guns around everywhere.
In addition to instilling me with a healthy respect for weapons in general, and those who serve our country in specific, my parents also taught me that we respect other people.
SFL has illuminated a fascinating aspect of the gun debate. As a gun owner herself and believer in the 2nd Amendment, she finds the blogging etiquette of some of the more passionate gun folks to be indicative of the fact that they may be unfit to carry guns around. I don't think I'm reading too much into her remarks when I say, as I often have, that some percentage of lawful gun owners are detrimental to their own cause.
The problem is identifying them. I described them pretty well in The Famous 10%, but still, how can they be identified? Daisy said it best in her wonderful post, What I learned from blogging this year, a cautionary tale.
If you can't decently handle the First Amendment, why should we believe you can handle the Second?
What's your opinion? Do you ever wonder if the blogging comportment of certain individuals is indicative of their general behavior? How do you think the gun owner who is unstable and dangerous would sound in blog comments? Or do you think the one has nothing to do with the other?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I'll say the same thing I said over at 3boxes:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading SFL's comments, I have to say it’s amazing how the allegedly “educated” amongst us have the most vulgar mouths and limited vocabularies. No wonder they don’t trust anyone to carry a gun in public. Someone like her shouldn’t be trusted outside of a padded room with the furniture bolted to the floor.
It seems the vast majority of anti-gunners never matured past the level of “angry teenager”.
They seem more interested in playing "micro-dictator" with the delete button than they do in having any type of discussion. And when people get mad at them, they want to pretend they have the moral high ground.
Both Daisy and SFL have joined the ranks of SouthernBeale, Skyewriter, and Catherine MacIvor. They all love to talk about gun owners or talk at gun owners. But can't stand to talk with gun owners. And hell forbid gun owners actually talk back to them. It makes them go into histrionics.
My advice to Bob S. and the others is to never argue with idiots. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience... Or in this case, the delete button.
Whenever I spot one of their gun related screeds, I just laugh and keep it moving. If i'm going to waste my time rebutting anti-gun idiocy, i'm going to do it at HuffPo where there is at least a sizable audience.
I have to give it to you mikeb. You are an anomaly among the anti-gunners. You're nothing like those others.
AztecRed said, "I have to give it to you mikeb. You are an anomaly among the anti-gunners. You're nothing like those others."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment. It means a lot to me.
I have had a pet complaint about gun control bloggers (many of whom are no longer with us).
ReplyDeleteBlogger: "We need more gun control because..."
Comment A: "Your facts are wrong because..."
Comment B: "Your logic is wrong because..."
Comment C: "Your proposal has been tried and failed as follows..."
Comment D: "Drop dead, commie!
Blogger: "Look at comment D -- how typical of gun advocates!
Well done Fishy.
ReplyDeleteApparently neither of you have heard of the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory, and sorry, it's not just limited to people who write on gun topics.
ReplyDeleteMikeB - Read my post titled "Sad But Predictable"
ReplyDeleteIt perfectly describes the actions of SFL on her blog.
I have to say I wish that I were wrong about that post, but unfortunately anti-gunners like SFL and her husband keep proving me right.
I think Sebastian has it down correctly with the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory. And yes, he is correct, it is not just limited to the gun debate.
ReplyDeleteFJ:
ReplyDeleteRarely do gunloons leave measured and reasoned responses. Most accuse the person of wanting to tear up the Constitution, have old ladies gangraped and of being mentally retarded.
Sure, you guys will post the odd cherry-picked factoid such as that Vermont is nearly crime-free as if VT's gun laws would thus lead to a safe utopia everywhere. Or the neat claims that bathtubs are more dangerous than assault weapons (one wonders why we don't arm our combat troops with portable Jacuzzis).
Later, I shall expound on the tactics used by gunloons in debate.
--JadeGold
--
Add in: when has any serious form of control been tried in the US? Sure, it's been tried on a piecemeal basis, but it needs to be uniform throughout the 50 states.
ReplyDelete"If you can't decently handle the First Amendment, why should we believe you can handle the Second?"
ReplyDeleteIt would be useful to know what she meant by "can't decently handle the First Amendment." Does saying something that someone finds rude and offensive qualify as not "decently handl[ing] the First Amendment," in her estimation? If so, I beg to differ. I would, in fact, argue that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the right to say things that some--perhaps a majority--would prefer left unsaid.
Similarly, the Second Amendment exists to protect the right to keep and bear arms of people whom the government (and again, perhaps much of the public) would prefer be kept unarmed. If the government didn't have a problem with such people being armed, after all, there would be no need to protect their right to do so.
That's why, when I hear someone questioning whether this or that person should have guns--or even access to guns--I have to expend a good deal of effort in keeping my chuckles from becoming outright guffaws. As if what some "gun control" advocate thinks about who should have a right to armed defense of their lives and liberty has any relevance.
Zorro, There you go again taking things so seriously and literally that all discussion stops.
ReplyDeleteFishyJay sure did give us a good example of how many gun control folks react. But maybe it's not just us.
I think Zorro has SFL's take on the 1st Amendment exactly ass backwards. All else flows from that assumption.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that this is one of your favorite new blogs. Her blog shows the same hostility, lack of tolerance, and threats of violence that Laci's blog contains.
ReplyDeleteBingo, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI've always argued the US has never tried gun control. Thus, to claim it hasn't worked is rather ludicrous.
--JadeGold
Do you ever wonder if the blogging comportment of certain individuals is indicative of their general behavior? How do you think the gun owner who is unstable and dangerous would sound in blog comments
ReplyDeleteFor the first time in quite a while anywhere, I had a post rejected. She had complained about involving her husband, I had one sentence saying that someone who offered physical violence over blog comments (as someone appearing to be her husband did) was worth mocking.
Although I agree that rudeness isn't productive (and there are some rude gun bloggers), I can't recall seeing a pro-gun blogger offer physical violence over blog comments.
If offering a fistfight over blog comments is normal in your world, I can understand opposing guns.
JadeGold, the US's only experiment with gun control, the NFA has been fairly successful since rarely are legal machineguns used in crimes.
ReplyDelete"Threats of violence" at Laci's blog? Did somebody miss Zorro's avatar? Cross hairs on Laci's head. I'd categorise that as a death threat.
Anyway, if you need a gun to counter someone who threatens to beat you up with your hands, then you are a coward.
TR would be ashamed to have you use him as an avatar, RuffRidr, as he was a boxing enthusiast.
Can the NFA really be regarded as a successful gun control law? To take the example to an extreme, one could argue that the laws on destructive devices have really cut down on criminal use of heavy artillery. Or could it be that there's just not much demand among criminals for artillery?
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm getting at is that we don't have enough information to determine how successful NFA has been, because we don't know what the criminal demand for machine guns, SBRs and SBSs would be in a less restricted market. I would posit that for the same reasons MGs aren't all that useful to the average citizen, they aren't that remarkably important for criminals either. If they were, they are trivially easy to make. Hell, look at the M3 Submachine Gun, known commonly as the "Grease Gun." You could turn those out by the hundreds in a basement machine shop if the demand for MGs among criminals was really that high.
I would wager that absent the NFA, criminal use of MGs would probably not be all that much higher (though it would probably be somewhat higher than now just because they would be more common). The handgun would remain the weapon of choice for criminals.
I also don't think it follows that because criminal use of MGs is lower that similarly restricting other firearms, particularly handguns, would have the same effect. To the extent that NFA suppresses criminal use of MGs, it's probably only because reasonable substitutes are available. At some point you're going to stamp out the primary market enough to create underground manufacturing operations, and I would point out when that picks up, it's far easier to make a submachine gun than it is to make a reasonable semi-automatic pistol.
Anyway, if you need a gun to counter someone who threatens to beat you up with your hands, then you are a coward.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that whoever is the best fist-fighter is the best man. I figure someone who wants to fistfight over a blog comments has a whole lot more experience in fist-fighting than I do. I haven't been in a fistfight since junior high school, almost 30 years ago. Violence isn't something that reasonable adults seek out. If they want to fight physically, I'm going to decline the offer, and if a verbal "no" is not sufficient, I've got the means to back it up despite my lack of physical prowess.
If your definition of coward is "refuses to fight unless forced, but if forced fights by his own rules"--I am a coward.
Sevasteen, have you noticed how many illegal conversions and other machineguns there are out there? A fair amount.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the legally owned machineguns are rarely used in crimes since they can be traced.
Registration, when applied, does indeed work since it allows for tracability.
Don't give me this crap about "gun rights" precluding registration since:
A) the early militia required enrollment on a muster roll
B) there were militia surveys to find out how many members ACUALLY had firearms
C) DC v. Heller did not invalidate registration. IN fact, Dick Heller was denied registration for one of his pistols!
So, if you think an invader or tyrant is really going to care if your gun is registered or not, you may just have to wait until the high explosives blow your hidy hole to _______ (I'll let you be creative on that one). I'd love to see the shock and awe on your faces when that happens!
NotJadeGold
Violence isn't something that reasonable adults seek out. If they want to fight physically, I'm going to decline the offer, and if a verbal "no" is not sufficient, I've got the means to back it up despite my lack of physical prowess.
ReplyDeleteIf your definition of coward is "refuses to fight unless forced, but if forced fights by his own rules"--I am a coward.
Anyone who carries a firearm is doing themselves a grave disservice if they do not also carry some form of chemical spray. Generally speaking, if you shoot someone who was trying to start a fist fight with you, you're probably going to end up with a lot of very expensive explaining to do (you have a right for an attorney to be present during questioning, but they don't come cheap.)
Chemical spray will put down your typical drunk asshole, or tough guy who wants to start something. At the very least it might give you the opportunity to bring more force into place or escape the situation entirely. But chemical sprays are so useful in such a wide variety of situations, it just makes sense to carry it.
"TR would be ashamed to have you use him as an avatar, RuffRidr, as he was a boxing enthusiast."
ReplyDeleteBoxing is a sanctioned sport between two willing parties. I seriously doubt Teddy would condone using physical violence to stifle free speech.
"Sevasteen, have you noticed how many illegal conversions and other machineguns there are out there? A fair amount."
ReplyDeleteCitation please. The FBI's statistics don't back up your assertion.
NotJadeGold: "have you noticed how many illegal conversions and other machineguns there are out there? A fair amount."
ReplyDeleteI HAVE noticed how many illegal conversions and other illegal machineguns are used in serious crimes in the US. An INSIGNIFICANT amount.
NotJadeGold: "Registration, when applied, does indeed work since it allows for tracability."
It is interesting to note that the position of most major gun control groups on registered legal machine guns is BAN THEM.
So if "registration, when applied, does indeed work since it allows for tracability," and it is applied to handguns for example, how long until most major gun control groups want to ban those too?
Heh, your new favorite blog sent all her posts and comments down the memory hole.
ReplyDeleteVery predictable.
As Aztec said, she's got a vulgar mouth on her, not to mention she's rude, condescending, and takes great offense to being shown facts by dissenters offering a rational argument. No wonder you liked her.
Mikeb says:"Zorro, There you go again taking things so seriously and literally that all discussion stops."
ReplyDeleteI suppose I am opening myself to renewed charges of "taking things so seriously and literally that all discussion stops," but I can't help but note that "all discussion" hasn't stopped.
Once again, I'll point out that when people habitually make goofy statements with apparent intent that they be taken seriously, there should be no surprise that their "jokes" and "exaggerations" are taken as attempts to be taken seriously.
I think you will find that you will be in far more trouble if you choose to use a firearm. As Sebastian points out, the chemical spray will save you a significant amount of grief.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the person is able to fight you, and is good shape, they might have some other training that could render your gun more a liability than an asset.
If you shoot someone who is challenging you to a fist fight, you are not only a coward--you are a moron.
To be quite frank about it, you are proving that you should not be carrying a firearm.
Besides, you won't have one with you when you are in prison.
Democommie said: "I think Zorro has SFL's take on the 1st Amendment exactly ass backwards."
ReplyDeletePerhaps--although I thought we were talking about Daisy Deadhead's remark, rather than SFL's. But perhaps you're just confused--no matter--happens to the best of us, and to collectivist nanny-statists, as well, apparently. So, if I'm not misinterpreting your statement, you're saying that Daisy Deadhead's (or SFL's?) remark about gun rights advocates not "decently handl[ing] the First Amendment" is a claim that the pro-rights side abuses the First Amendment rights of those who argue for more draconian gun laws.
That may be right--perhaps that is what she was arguing, but if so, it's even more ridiculous than what I had thought she was saying. No one's right to free speech is violated by those who disagree voicing--perhaps rudely--their disagreement with what is being said. I have seen no attempt to suppress either Daisy Deadhead's or Southern Female Lawyer's expression of their opinions, so how is the First Amendment being not "decently handle[d]" here?
Sebastian:
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that pepper spray in addition to a handgun gives enough advantage (either legal or tactical) in enough situations that I am likely to encounter to be worth carrying yet more equipment with me--there's a limit to what we can reasonably prepare for.
I avoid people who like to fight, and I'm not going to provide Mr SFL with my address. On the other hand, if I thought he were likely to visit me, I'd probably add pepper spray to my gear-there would be a specific threat to prepare for.
Sebastian, It makes sense what you say about the pepper spray. Of course I'm all for ways to avoid shooting. But where do you draw the line? I always make fun of you guys with the meteorite example, but really where is the line for you? Gun, knife and pepper spray, for sure. Anything else? Handcuffs maybe, a blackjack? How about one of those backup guns in an ankle holster? I'm sure a flak jacket and hard hat are too much even for the most overcautious.
ReplyDeleteIf you can carry a gun, you can carry a defensive spray. Some people carry backup guns, and yet carry no defensive spray. Up until a year or so ago, I was one of them, until I really thought about what I was doing, and had someone point out to me a better way.
ReplyDeleteI currently carry a flashlight, a folding knife, pepper spray, and a Glock 19. That's in order of usefulness on a regular basis. The flashlight and folding knife I use all the time, though not for self-defense. They are just handy things to carry with you. If you can carry a keychain, you can carry all of these things. My flashlight and spray are very small. The folding knife isn't that big either.
Truth is, pepper spray is useful in more situations than a gun, because you're more likely to run into someone who's unarmed and, for whatever reasons, drunk, bad attitude, wants to kick your ass. That's a defensive spray situation first, and a gun situation last. That's not to say I'm against carrying guns (obviously I'm not) but be realistic about what kind of situations a gun is useful for and what it's not. A gun is a last resort tool, to save your life in a grave situation where lesser force just won't work, or is too risky to try. If someone pulls a deadly weapon on you, you're outnumbered, or you need to escape to save your life, by all means, go to the gun. But if you shoot some random, unarmed drunk who's looking for a fight, you're probably going to have a lot of questions to answer for the police, and likely before a jury. When deadly force is justified is very circumstantial. Even if you're in a Castle Doctrine state, you are wise to do everything you can to avoid having to use it.
Laci:
ReplyDeleteI won't shoot (or pepper spray) someone who is merely challenging me to a fistfight, or disparaging my mother, or anything merely verbal. If someone wants me to fight, they will have to work for it--chase me, sucker punch me, etc.
Sebastian:
If I were to add something else defensive to the crap I carry, I'd add pepper spray long before I'd carry either extra ammo or a spare gun. I certainly don't advocate against pepper spray, it is just that the convenience of being without it slightly outweighs the risk of being without it in my particular, extremely low risk circumstances. I try very hard, and so far 100% successfully to avoid situations where the lack of pepper spray is going to be an issue.
I would actively avoid carrying handcuffs. Useful for law enforcement, not useful for self-defense. I know which one I am.
Sebastian says, "Truth is, pepper spray is useful in more situations than a gun, because you're more likely to run into someone who's unarmed and, for whatever reasons, drunk, bad attitude, wants to kick your ass."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that? Have you had to use your spray? I think you've said you've never had to use the gun, but have you come close? Why all the precautions?
MikeB - I suspect, like the rest of us, that Sebastian would rather not have to ever shoot someone, so he carries something that can get him out of violent situations with less than lethal force.
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't noticed, your "new favorite blog" just got flushed down the memory hole.
ReplyDeleteBeing a lawyer, she's well aware of the CRIME here husband committed and is trying to cover his ass.
Screen caps had been taken before she shut it down.
Yeah, real big crime that was. You uber-righteous guys blew it all our of proportion and went into attack mode.
ReplyDelete