I summed up the original article like this:
Two main points:
1. The required training is practically worthless, and
2. The chances of needing a gun to save your life are very small.
Jim Reynolds, who claimed Milloy was biased, which may be true, had this to say as a sort-of general explanation of the need and the seriousness of being armed for self-defense:
When I stand up to crime with my handgun, defending my family at home, or perhaps Milloy and his family at a restaurant or some other public place, I'll be glad that there is someone like him with a pen and notepad in hand to write about it. Obviously, he'd have his hands full with that.
So deep into the fantasy of protecting themselves with a gun, many gun owners believe this. The delicious fantasy blinds them to the fact that the chances are much more likely their gun will be misused before it is ever needed defensively. Part of that misuse feeds into the gun flow from lawful ownership into criminal hands. Once that happens, the gun is sure to be misused some more, thus compounding the problem.
I'm sure those possibilities are not part of the training course. It's as if the gun manufacturers and gun dealers are tricking people into wanting guns by unfairly representing the need. An honest approach would be to admit that there's a big downside to owning a gun, that statistically many bad things are more likely to happen than one good one. If, knowing that, someone decides he wants a gun anyway, fine. But distorting the facts and pushing the paranoia to sell guns is bad.
Regular gun owners are involved in this too. Having swallowed the "need" pitch themselves, they naturally feel more comfortable surrounded by like-minded folks with whom they can mock the serious concerns of the gun control movement.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
> statistically many bad things are more likely to happen than one good one.
ReplyDeleteStatistically a huge magnitude of benign things happen. 6-7 billion bullets were made and sold last year. A fraction of them hit paper, steel, and improvised targets. An even smaller fraction hit game or pest animals. And much, much fewer hit individual people.
Sure we have tens of millions of people enjoy swimming pools annually, but its foolish to ban them because drowning deaths exceed gun deaths.
I remember this story. This is the one where the writer makes fun of the instructor using a scenario of a woman making a random knife attack as if that would ever happen.
ReplyDeleteOf course the article published the same day that a woman was the victim of a random knife attack by another woman in DC.
MikeB: “An honest approach would be to admit that there's a big downside to owning a gun, that statistically many bad things are more likely to happen than one good one. If, knowing that, someone decides he wants a gun anyway, fine. But distorting the facts and pushing the paranoia to sell guns is bad.”
ReplyDeleteYou are just as bias as Milloy. All you can come away with from Reynold’s rebuttal was “pushing paranoia” with hyperbole. What did you get from Reynold’s when he said this?
Jim Reynolds: “Milloy gave the reader just enough information to draw the wrong conclusion. He mentioned the "woman with a butcher knife" but didn't say that the emphasis was that not every situation is best handled by firing a shot. He also missed the lessons on the causes of firearm-related accidents, securing your firearms at home, and teaching gun safety to your children and family, as well as every other reference to being a responsible gun owner.”
Here he speaks about how not everything is best handled with a bullet, how there ARE accidents (and what you can do to prevent them), how to secure firearms, teach safety, and in general be responsible. But all you can take away is “pushing paranoia”. I am not surprised he also mentions defensive situations- this is a self-defense class after all. Milloy took your exact same attitude into Reynold’s class which is why he wrote such a trashy op-ed piece.
Milloy hit this guy with a combination. First, he hurt Reynold's manhood and, second, he hurt this guy's wallet. Of course, he's going to squeal.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't Reynolds anywhere near me or my family. He's unsafe and a menace to himself and those around him. It's bad to enough to have a paranoid blowhard who's unarmed around--give him a gun and the odds of something bad happening are multiplied by several magnitudes.
Authoritarians like TS and Reynolds demand that I accept their "protection" despite the fact they are the last people on earth I would trust.
Jadegold: “Authoritarians like TS and Reynolds demand that I accept their "protection" despite the fact they are the last people on earth I would trust.”
ReplyDeleteUnless I invite you into my house, you have no need to worry about being protected by me. I am hurt by your lack of trust, though. What did I do to deserve that? I guess you are not in MikeB’s camp that you only want to take guns away from the “bad apples”.
TS: You show poor judgement.
ReplyDeleteWhat have I done to show poor judgment- other than stand up for my right to bear arms? Is it any wonder we don’t want people like you deciding who gets to own guns when the mere act of wanting guns is seen as lunacy?
ReplyDeleteWell, take heart TS. Jadefool and his ilk have no power anymore. They are losing ground and members at a rate that leaves them with nothing but insults and shrill reminders of "blood in the streets." All of the evidence is and has been coming in, and in our favor.
ReplyDeleteIt must drive them absolutely bonkers that they can't get your guns. I almost feel sorry for them.
Nah, not really.
"What have I done to show poor judgment...?"
ReplyDeleteExpecting rational, thoughtful dialogue from Jade Gold.
I guess it could be argued that anyone who refuses the logic and common sense of the gun control argument shows poor judgment. Aside from that, I kinda like TS. Without going back to look for objectionable quotes, I find him a lot easier to deal with than, say, Ruffridr, not to mention Weer'd, Bob S. and Mike W. FWM is OK for me too.
ReplyDeleteThese are just general impressions, you know those feely sensations that I like so much. When it comes to the real argument, though, I think they're all wrong and I agree with you, Jadegold.
I find him a lot easier to deal with than, say, Ruffridr, not to mention Weer'd, Bob S. and Mike W. FWM is OK for me too.
ReplyDeleteIn the past week alone, ridiculous statements from you have painted me as a criminal, racist, and a child abuser. Tell me again why I should be easy to deal with?
"I guess it could be argued that anyone who refuses the logic and common sense of the gun control argument shows poor judgment."
ReplyDeleteWell, when you find ANY argument for gun control that uses logic or common sense, let us know and we'll see if it can be agreed upon.
Until then, continue to throw out exaggerations, generalizations and insults. In other words, carry on.
OK, criminals and the insane should not be allowed to own firearms.
ReplyDeleteYou got a prob with that anon?
Laci
Depends upon how you define "criminal" and "insane," doesn't it, yappy dog?
ReplyDeleteLaci, change that to "violent criminals" and I'll be right there with you on that one.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that's really all the gun control I'd be able to stomach, but if background checks were streamlined and improved (possibly by using BIDS instead of NICS) and prohibited possesors were actually procecuted, what more gun control would we need?
Explination of BIDS here by Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS%20v.%20NICS.htm
Kevin, Aren't you describing more gun control right there in your comment: a better system for doing background checks which presumably should be done in all cases or they'd be no more effective that what we have now.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm really going for less. Other than checking if the buyer is alright, I see no reason to have any other gun control at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, if you're niether a violent criminal nor insane what would it matter if you had some "specialised, concealed-carry, anti-armor assault weapon pistol with a 'shoulder thing that goes up' and 'high-capacity ammunition feeding devices'"?