Now they've published a rebuttal by Warren E. Neumann, who served in the Navy during the Korean War, was a police officer in Englewood for 14 years and has been a private detective for 39 years.
Mr. Neumann makes some of the very points which our own commenters made on the first article. For example, he disputed Iannarelli's idea that a safely stored weapon is completely removed from the action if a break-in should occur.
Iannarelli suggests storing a weapon unloaded, but it takes a mere two to five seconds to slap a loaded magazine into a semi-automatic pistol if and when that late-night breaking of glass occurs. So much for his suggestion that an unloaded gun is ineffective. In many cases, the mere display of an unloaded or loaded weapon has thwarted intruders and allowed them to be held for the police.
It seems to me both of them are exaggerating. What do you think?
I have lived many, many years with a loaded firearm by my side, and have used it many times over the years in protection of my property and safety and even of others in my neighborhood, despite Iannarelli’s opinion that one would have a once-in-a-lifetime crime experience.
It doesn't seem like a fair comparison does it? One guy's a rough and tumble law enforcement officer and the other is a normal suburban homeowner.
And the reason for Neumann's rebuttal:
I know and like Anthony Iannarelli, but because of my own life experience, feel a responsibility to contradict what I consider misinformation to the law-abiding public, which only serves to fuel those who oppose the Second Amendment.
What do you think about that? Is opposing the 2nd Amendment the same as hating guns? Do you think it might be possible for one to reject the 2nd Amendment argument for individual gun rights and still accept the possession of guns in certain cases?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I did have a recently returned veteran of the Iraqi conflict tell me that he put all of his guns, his kevlar helmet and kevlar vest in the closet next to his bed. He says if a guy breaks in he's going to be faced with an armed, gun savvy "victim" who has several handguns and several thousand rounds of ammo.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely do not get what sort of logic drives that kind of behavior.
Note Iannerelli said nothing about the 2A--for or against-- but Neumann elects to attack him on this basis.
ReplyDeleteNeumann also claims he's used his firearm on many occassions--this is probably his imagination. Given the fact Neumann--who's probably in his mid- to late-70s--thinks he's going to wake up from his sleep, load up, and then make some pretty heavy decisions, I'd say he's fairly delusional.
Iannerelli's advice, OTOH, is sound. First, your chances of being robbed in your home are remote. Second, the vast majority of crooks don't want a confrontation with you--they want your stuff. This means they will almost always be deterred by an alarm system, a dog, lights, etc.
This last point I cannot emphasize enough. Most gunloons live under the fantasy they see in movies--that robbers break in and desire some grandiose confrontation with you.
--JadeGold
JadeGolds says:
ReplyDeleteMost gunloons [sic] live under the fantasy they see in movies--that robbers break in and desire some grandiose confrontation with you.
How comforting that will be, while bleeding out one's last drops, after finding out that these home invaders weren't among the "vast majority of crooks," and did come for violence.
"In many cases, the mere display of an unloaded or loaded weapon has thwarted intruders and allowed them to be held for the police."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't point an unloaded gun at someone hoping it would thwart them. That's about as dumb as pointing an empty fire extinguisher at a fire, hoping to put it out.
"Is opposing the 2nd Amendment the same as hating guns?"
No. Some people just don't like guns, but still manage to support the 2nd Amendment.
"Do you think it might be possible for one to reject the 2nd Amendment argument for individual gun rights and still accept the possession of guns in certain cases?"
Sure. That's what the Brady Campaign does. That's what you do.
"Second, the vast majority of crooks don't want a confrontation with you--they want your stuff. This means they will almost always be deterred by an alarm system, a dog, lights, etc."
ReplyDeleteAnd if those things don't work, they'll face the best deterrent of all: A bullet.
Criminals don't desire confrontations with the police either. But even though police have alarms, dogs, and lights, they still have guns. That should tell you that despite all the other deterrents, sometimes you just need a gun.
democommie said, "I sincerely do not get what sort of logic drives that kind of behavior."
ReplyDeleteI think I get it. Instead of logic they're motivated by paranoia, fear, insecurity and inadequacy (the psychological kind).
I think I get it. Instead of logic they're motivated by paranoia, fear, insecurity and inadequacy (the psychological kind).
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's been a clinical study to back up your assertation, right?
"Criminals don't desire confrontations with the police either. But even though police have alarms, dogs, and lights, they still have guns. That should tell you that despite all the other deterrents, sometimes you just need a gun."
ReplyDeleteAzRed doesn't think very well.
Is he seriously suggesting the average citizen performs the same functions as the police? The reason police carry firearms is that we often require that they deliberately interject themselves into known hostile and dangerous situations.
--JadeGold
Police officers have no obligation to do that, Jade. Not to mention that LEO cannot always be around when bad things happen, in fact, they usually aren't. Criminals tend not to commit crimes around cops.
ReplyDelete"The reason police carry firearms is that we often require that they deliberately interject themselves into known hostile and dangerous situations."
ReplyDeleteAnd average citizens sometimes get interjected into unwittingly hostile and dangerous situations.
"I think I get it. Instead of logic they're motivated by paranoia, fear, insecurity and inadequacy (the psychological kind)."
ReplyDeleteI never understood the name-calling that anti-gun folks like to use, until I heard of "projection."
I mean, really, paranoia? Gun owners recognize that there are people out there in society who will hurt you and take your things because they can. Gun owners recognize that the police have no duty to protect you, cannot be everywhere all the time, and cannot be liable for failing to do their job or failing to protect you. Gun owners recognize that criminals do not live on some isolated island that only the unlucky get to visit. Gun owners take the necessary steps to provide their own protection, and for this they are labeled paranoid.
Yet, the anti-gunners who can surely see the same news stories, choose to blame the gun, and through prior restraint wish to take guns away, just in case, from everyone (except the "Only Ones" like the police, whom have been blessed with a Jedi-like supreme mastery over their firearms, except when the leave them in bathrooms, or accidentally shoot themselves or a suspect). They want all guns out of the hands of private citizens, because some froot-loop MIGHT blow a gasket, even though more than 80 Million gun owners didn't do anything to deserve such treatment. But, that's not paranoia?
Pot? Here's Kettle!
Fear? What does a person with a gun have to fear? In somebody attacks them, they can shoot their attacker, no? So, where's the fear? Certainly not with the gun owners.
Insecurity, I kind of get, but I think you've missed something. Gun owners must be carrying the gun to make themselves "less insecure." Another way to put that might be, to make themselves more secure. Isn't that kind of the point? Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't all civilized human beings be able to feel secure? If carrying a firearm makes one feel more secure, isn't that because they are more capable of dealing with a criminal attack? Who wouldn't feel secure then? Are you suggesting that people would be better off if they were incapable of dealing with a violent criminal?
And my all time favorite, inadequacy (but you added psychological, so as to appear not-quite-so-offending, right?). How is a person suffering from some sort of psychological inadequacy because he recognizes that he cannot control everything and everyone around him? How is a person suffering from inadequacy because they realize that they are mortal, and if attacked by someone whom is also mortal, that they would want to be prepared with the latest and most efficient handheld tool that could sufficiently deal with that problem?
I really fail to see how that would make someone inadequate. In fact, if anything, it simply makes them a realist.
Shrimp, I guess you can take my naming the motivations of gun owners as "name calling," but it is a bit of a stretch.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you missed my point, perhaps intentionally. In your attempt to demolish my remarks line by line, there's a trendy internet word for that, I forget what it is, you seemed to be addressing the motivations of folks who already own guns. I was talking about what motivates people to get guns in the first place.
So feel free to try that comment again, but back it up a bit. I named the four reasons, not that I think this is an exhaustive list or that I've written something profound, off the top of my head I named motivations for people to decide to be armed, "paranoia, fear, insecurity and inadequacy (the psychological kind)."
So feel free to try that comment again, but back it up a bit.
ReplyDeleteMike, I love how you have turned this argument around. You say that gun owners are motivated by paranoia, fear, insecurity and inadequacy. Now after somebody disagrees with your statement, you are forcing them to back it up. How about you back up your original comment!
"...I love how you have turned this argument around."
ReplyDeleteExactly! Mike, did you even read my comment? I did not miss your point, I addressed your four motivations. My point, since you missed it, was that those four motivations are insulting (perhaps intentionally), but even if they are really the only reasons that someone might choose to own (and carry) a gun, they are all valid as reasons to own a gun.
My other point was that through projection, anti-gun folks like yourself are casting your fear, paranoia, insecurity and inadequacy onto those with whom you disagree. Look up "projection" some time. The JPFO has an excellent article on the subject.
As for my "trendy" internet style, all I can say is, I much prefer to make my case, point by point, rather than jumble a thousand sentences together and lose any train of thought. It's how I refute any argument. I don't like having conversations that meander aimlessly, and in print, it's much easier to control and answer individual points. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's how I've always done it. I guess I'm trendy, now.
I'll take you at your word, Mike, that you did not intend those words as insults or name-calling, but if you are truly just naming a few motivations for people to own guns, let me name just a few: hunting, sport shooting, patriotism, mere "want," "cool" factor (as in 'that is a cool gun,' not 'I'm cool because I have a gun.').
The list could go on, but I'll concede your point that there are some people who might buy guns because of those factors you mentioned. But, as I was making my point originally, so what if that's why they got into it?
If a woman (typically at a disadvantage from any male attacker) buys a gun because she fears getting raped, or has escaped an abusive relationship and knows her ex might try to harm her, how is her motivation any less valid because it was fear-based? Should she be debarred the use of arms because her reasons didn't fit your view of why she should want one?
In fact, none of the reasons you suggest are reasons to disqualify someone from buying a gun in the first place, even paranoia. In a free society that respects individuals and their rights, the reasons for wanting the gun are irrelevant. What they do with gun is relevant. If they want to buy the gun because they think it's pretty, or because they're afraid of aliens from Mars, it matters not. If they use it illegally, that's another matter.
Shrimp, I guess you have a good point there. If people buy guns out of fear or paranoia, so what. If it's their right to buy guns, what's the difference?
ReplyDeleteOf course, this would change the perception of gun owners as rational and responsible patriots which many of you guys keep pushing. The truth is, lawful gun owners are often lacking in the very characteristics necessary to make them rational and responsible. By the way, did you ever have a chance to read my 10% idea.
RuffRidr said, "Now after somebody disagrees with your statement, you are forcing them to back it up."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I need to be less ambiguous. I meant "back it up" chronologically to the point before they owned guns to examine their motives for deciding to arm up.
I didn't mean "back it up" with proof.
"Of course, this would change the perception of gun owners as rational and responsible patriots which many of you guys keep pushing."
ReplyDeleteUmm, how exactly does this change any perception of gun owners at large? As a majority, they are still responsible and rational, even if a minority actually is irresponsible and irrational, no? Isn't that how stereotyping works? We take the major, obvious thing (whatever that might be) and make it fit for all regardless of truth.
"The truth is, lawful gun owners are often lacking in the very characteristics necessary to make them rational and responsible."
Proof?? You have absolutely none. "Often lacking"? So, a majority then? But that doesn't fit with the facts.
Do you just hate gun owners, no matter what? I mean, if you do, I see no point in ever continuing to visit you blog and comment. You know, that's cool. I can handle that. But, if it's not true, you really need to stop with that sort of "broad brush" comment, 'cause it's just not cool.
I've owned guns since I was 16. I've shot guns since I was 12. I've never accidentally shot anyone, or ever discharged a weapon by accident. I don't know anyone that has (and I know hundreds, no exaggeration, HUNDREDS of gun owners). So, if your comment was even halfway accurate, I should know a few, right? But I don't, and trust me when I say that gun owners talk about these things. Believe it or not, we are conscious of safety.
"By the way, did you ever have a chance to read my 10% idea."
I just read it. Numbers too high. Maybe two, three percent tops. Probably much lower, considering that most of the 80 Million gun owners out there never get into any sort of trouble, year after year.
I can agree with the premise that there are those who should not own guns (based upon my opinion). I cannot agree that they should not own guns because you or I said so. In other words, despite my feelings on the matter, they still have the right to own guns, even if I don't like it.
Shrimp: "I can agree with the premise that there are those who should not own guns (based upon my opinion). I cannot agree that they should not own guns because you or I said so. In other words, despite my feelings on the matter, they still have the right to own guns, even if I don't like it."
ReplyDeleteWell said. With most rights there will be people who will abuse that right and who the rest of us wish could be deprived of that right.
We can look at ways to deal with the worst cases of abuse, but even then we must tread VERY carefully lest those efforts infringe upon the rights of the rest.
Shrimp asked, "Do you just hate gun owners, no matter what?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all, nor do I consider them the enemy, like many of them seem to feel about me.
Mike, I'll let you in on a little secret (it isn't really a secret, but you seem not to get it).
ReplyDeleteThey view you as the enemy because you:
1. Are condescending (that means you talk down to people like they're idiots*) towards pro gun folks. (*A friend of mine used to say that all the time. It is meant to be funny, even though in your case, I do mean it. Your posts are condescending, as though you are the holder of some great knowledge, and all of us great unwashed masses just can't comprehend your superior understanding on the subject of taking away our guns for our own good.)
2. Throw veiled and not-so-veiled insults at the pro gun folks. You insult their intelligence, their thought processes, their lifestyle etc. I've read plenty here, and will provide examples if you wish. I doubt I need to. Reading through the comments of blogs past, I can see that many have pointed out the same, although you disagree with that assessment.
3. Are attempting to take away the most effective and efficient means of self defense bases upon prior restraint--despite the fact that gun control has repeatedly shown itself to be ineffective in reducing crime or preventing crime.
4. Are attempting to take away a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. (Imagine the reverse were true, for a moment, and that pro gun folks were attempting to severely limit or altogether remove your right to speak freely. Imagine that there were significant laws already in place that restricted your right to freely practice free speech. Imagine that pro gun folks were pushing for more laws that prohibited or further removed your protected rights. Would you not consider someone that attempts to take away your rights as your enemy?)
This is a short list. With some time, I could go on, but I won't. I have innocent blood I have to get on my hands merely by being a gun owner. That doesn't happen all by itself, you know.
Once again, Shrimp nails it. In advocating attacks on my liberty, Mikeb, you have announced our enmity. That you don't hate me makes little difference to me--a lion may not hate a zebra, but that doesn't do the zebra any good as it gets devoured.
ReplyDeleteZorro: "a lion may not hate a zebra, but that doesn't do the zebra any good as it gets devoured."
ReplyDeleteWait a minute, I thought I was a sheep, now I'm a lion and you're a zebra? I'm confused.
Srimp, I don't mean to be condescending or insulting. I think you're confusing disagreement with those other ideas.
ReplyDeleteYour 3rd and 4th points both accuse me of "attempting" to do something. Again I suggest we're only disagreeing. Perhaps if my little blog ever achieved the level of traffic you see on Sebastian's or Uncle's, you'd have a point. But, take a look at my sitemeter link I left on the sidebar for just this purpose. Do you really think I'm "attempting" to do something?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWait a minute, I thought I was a sheep, now I'm a lion and you're a zebra? I'm confused.
Have I ever referred to you as a sheep? I suppose I may have, at some time, although I don't remember doing so. Actually, I thought that I'd pretty much refrained from any name-calling directed at you at all.
In the sense, though, that you advocate predatory infringement on my rights, you are--if not the predator (that would be the government)--at least on the predator's side, and I am the would-be prey you have in mind. I suppose that if I had put more thought into the African plains wildlife analogy, you would be a vulture or hyena, in that you see a benefit to yourself in the government's (lion's) preying on me (the zebra).
That's really more effort than I had planned to put into the analogy, though.
Zorro, I don't think you ever called me a sheep. This goes way back to a guy named Tom who used to comment here. You may know him, he writes a blog called Boomers and Bullshit or something like that. He used to say people are divided into two groups, sheep and sheepdogs.
ReplyDeleteMore recently though, kaveman said I'm a sheep and he pities me. That was in reference to the Katrina thing I think.
"...I don't mean to be condescending or insulting. I think you're confusing disagreement with those other ideas."
ReplyDeleteSo, now I'm not smart enough to discern insults or condescention from disagreement? (That's a joke, son. Laugh!)
Okay, I'll concede that you don't mean the comments to be insulting. However, as just one of many available examples, calling people "extremists" (look at the post below this one) because they believe in something that most people agree with is insulting. Most people want less taxes and less interference in their lives. That's what the TEA party folks want. And you label them extremists for it. (See the sharp thing at the end, called the point?)
"Do you really think I'm "attempting" to do something?"
You align yourself with those that would take my rights. If given the chance to remove firearms from everyone tomorrow, would you? If yes, then I used the correct word. The fact that your site generates little traffic is irrelevant. Or perhaps only shows that few people want what you're selling.
Maybe 'advocate' is a better word. The point remains the same, though.
Thanks, Shrimp, I was beginning to think you had no sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you say that?! I have no sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteIt was removed at birth, along with my heart and funny bone. No chance for "feelings" to develop, that way. It's tough having conservative parents.
At least if you're Jewish they only...well, never mind.