The airborne attack on Fort Eben-Emael also demonstrates Greg's historical ignorance.
You can correct grammar, Greg, but you know little else.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Greg, Greetings from Ypres!
Since Greg has this bizarre idea that a gun would stop a well armed foe, here's a picture of Ypres in West Flanders Belgium during one of the Three battles that raged through the Town during the 14-18 War. Not only was heavy artillery used, but so was poison gas. The third Battle is also known as the Battle of Passchendaele.
The airborne attack on Fort Eben-Emael also demonstrates Greg's historical ignorance.
You can correct grammar, Greg, but you know little else.
The airborne attack on Fort Eben-Emael also demonstrates Greg's historical ignorance.
You can correct grammar, Greg, but you know little else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The First World War isn't my specialty, but I do understand what happens in war. You're mixing up ideas here. You posted a picture of apes armed with rifles standing over half naked humans. My point was that I would prefer, in such a situation, to have a rifle of my own. (And some clothes. . .)
ReplyDeleteThat being said, let's note that guerrilla fighters have a long history of defeating much more powerful forces. It's ugly, but it can be done.
Let's get some clarity here. Do you believe in the right of self defense? If you do, will you agree that having a tool to defend myself makes that right a practical reality?
Given your comments, I have to what reason you see for letting police officers have guns. After all, we hear plenty of stories about the police abusing their authority, being killed by their own weapons, accidentally shooting the wrong person, and so forth.
If your purpose is to decry stupidity and call for more training, I'm with you. I'd ask you to be more even-handed in your remarks, but that's neither here nor there.
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"Let's get some clarity here. Do you believe in the right of self defense? If you do, will you agree that having a tool to defend myself makes that right a practical reality?"
I believe that you have a limited right to self-defense; I do not believe that the right necessarily extends to all weapons. I'm perfectly willing to see people with less-than-lethal weapons, like tasers and pepper spray. The reason is that you can use those effectively, but the chance of their abuse is less than a more lethal weapon.
But where we run into a disagreement is that I believe the primary defense against crime and violence is law enforcement; I do not agree that you reasonably need to have unlimited or unregulated firearms, or that you need to be carrying a gun anywhere much less everywhere 'just in case', unless you are either in a job which exposes you to specific and very real hazards - like some security guards, the guys who drive armored cars that pick up big amounts of cash, certain diamond couriers, etc. OR people who are specifically and demonstrably in real personal danger from a known threat, not a'maybe' but more likely not kind of danger.
So yes, in some cases having a 'tool' to defend yourself makes sense. In most of the cases where it is being claimed by pro-gun carriers? No. They create a greater danger than the one they claim to be defending against.
While yes, there ARE some instances of law enforcement abusing their authority, they are held accountable, and arguably to a higher standard.
There are people who are working hard to hold them to a similarly higher standard in the area of domestic violence by law officers as well, an area which needs improvement.
Laci, for example, works with dangerous criminals on a daily basis. He can carry, but my impression is he seldom does so. He is quite capable of handling danger and violence WITHOUT a firearm as well as with one.
"I believe that you have a limited right to self-defense;"
ReplyDeleteDo you believe you have a right to life? But that your life can be limited by someone else?
"I believe the primary defense against crime and violence is law enforcement;"
Why? Because they carry pens to write out a report of your rape or murder?
"there ARE some instances of law enforcement abusing their authority, they are held accountable, and arguably to a higher standard."
You better do some research on this toots. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases where cops have abused their authority, and literally get away with murder.
"You better do some research on this toots. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases where cops have abused their authority, and literally get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteNovember 4, 2011 11:01 PM'
And you have incontrovertible proof for 1% of those cases, which would be at least 20. Go ahead and dig it up, shit for brains, we'll wait till at least tomorrow to call you a lying sack of crap.
There are probably 20 here today alone. If not just go thru past days, weeks, months.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
The abuses have only been going on for over a hundred years.
Laci, for example, works with dangerous criminals on a daily basis. He can carry, but my impression is he seldom does so. He is quite capable of handling danger and violence WITHOUT a firearm as well as with one.
ReplyDeleteThere you go again.... didn't you learn your lesson the last time you outed Laci as hypocritical gun owner....
Thomas, I take it hypocritical means disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you do for a living, but easy access to guns is one things criminals thrive on.
It's like locking your door, removing your car keys, getting a burglar alarm, and other precautions. Sure, a determined criminal can get anything they want, and will do what they need to get it.
But you don't make it easy for them--or do you?
Greg, you also don't know the history of the Second War with your comment about Belgium and Switzerland (or Europe for that matter).
ReplyDeleteThere was resistance in Belgium during the 14-18 War, and the Germans would get civilians from the town and shoot them if they didn't betray the guerillas.
You may want to look up The Rape of Belgium.
There is no "right to self-defence". Self-defence is a mitigating factor which can excuse a crime, but it is not a right.
And the use of deadly force for self-defence is definitely not a right.
You may use only enough force to reasonably counter that threat. Use of any force beyond that could make you the aggressor.
That is how the founders understood self-defence and how it is applied in common law.
Unfortunately, the US is a very violent society and is much more permissive in its use of deadly force.
Yessireebob, the US is a violent society.
ReplyDeleteZug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve.
Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
Where did WWI & WWII start? Didn't you non-violent Euro people even have a Hundred Years War?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that our founding fathers here in violent America advised NOT getting involved with your European conflicts.
I don't believe you have a "right" to own a weapon. In my view, you have no more right to own a pistol than you have to own a refrigerator. And I say this notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court rulings which seemed to support individual "rights" in this regard.
ReplyDelete"There are probably 20 here today alone. If not just go thru past days, weeks, months.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
The abuses have only been going on for over a hundred years.
November 5, 2011 12:09 AM"
Wrong, again, sunshine. You made an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary supporting evidence, what you supplied is not even in the 1st percentile.
Oh, yeah, all those gun deaths in other countries? I did a quick total. If my math is correct, it's 126 murdered by guns. 126 murdered; that's about how many are murdered with guns in the U.S., every three to four days.
ReplyDeleteWere you trying to make some sort of point?
Dog Gone said, "He can carry, but my impression is he seldom does so."
ReplyDeleteWhy would she think this.....
Unless you told her you were a gun owner?
I can answer that. He qualifies for concealed carry, does not currently do so.
ReplyDeleteThat means I'm telling you nothing about his current gun ownership.
Having a concealed carry permit means you have owned guns - and Laci has.
I have no idea when the last time was that Laci concealed carried, but I do know it was not last week, or the week before.
Which shows you need to read more carefully before leaping to conclusions.
He does have a very nice shiny new boar spear though.
According to the position advocated here, my right to self defense means that I can die at the hands of a criminal, or I can die at the hands of a criminal covered in a condiment (pepper spray). The legal standard that was presented in my concealed carry class was that I have the right to stop a threat to my life. That means that if someone is attacking me with intent to cause bodily harm or death, I can shoot until that person is no longer endangering me. Once the threat is down, I am obliged to stop my response.
ReplyDeleteNothing in what I just wrote is meant to say that I want to do this. I don't go out seeking a fight. I treat my handgun like my seatbelt. I'm not looking for trouble, but if it comes, I'd better be wearing my safety device.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteAre you a really good shot, so you can just incapacitate a guy who may be trying to ask you for directions in spanish, farsi, polish or urdu because he doesn't speak english and he's hurt, confused, just been attacked himself or is mentally unbalanced? I assume the answer to this will be that you can't possibly be expected to figure all that out when your life is being "threatened" by someone who's scary.
In Canada, not too long ago, a young man approached a number of people asking for help; he said he needed to use their phone to call emergency services because his friend had fallen into the lake, gone under water and not surface. Finally after he had been ignored or rebuffed by several persons or groups, a woman helped him, she contacted emergency services and they responded quickly. Unfortunately, they were too late to save his friend who had by that time drowned in the lake.
Those who had refused to help the man said that he was unkempt and they thought he was lying. Simple mistakes are made and then have horrific consequences.
Guns cause far more problems than they solve, but as long as the gun is the only tool used, every challenge looks like a bullseye.
T
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've tried to be polite to you, but at this point, I have to conclude that you're either a fool or being deliberately stupid. The legal standard is that the person has to pose a threat of bodily harm or death. Someone asking a question doesn't meet that standard.
I pay attention to people around me. I don't whip out my handgun at any odd moment. The only reason to draw my weapon is if there is a threat that any reasonable person (not you) would recognize.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the position advocated here, my right to self defense means that I can die at the hands of a criminal, or I can die at the hands of a criminal covered in a condiment (pepper spray). The legal standard that was presented in my concealed carry class was that I have the right to stop a threat to my life. That means that if someone is attacking me with intent to cause bodily harm or death, I can shoot until that person is no longer endangering me. Once the threat is down, I am obliged to stop my response.
The training i had in my combat pistol training, which I took for my cc license, also made it very clear that 1. if there was a means of stopping the threat other than lethal force, I was obliged to use it - and that I'd better be damn sure I had considered all the possibilities before drawing a firearm and shooting.
and 2. that there was a requirement that if I had the option to retreat rather than fire, I was obligated to do so -- something I never hear from people like you commenting here, which causes me grave concern about your judgment and assumptions.
Your so-called right to self defense, IS, as Laci has so often reminded people here, a mitigating factor, not an entitlement to become the aggressor, not a carte blanche to shoot someone threatening you.
Further, it is reasonable to posit that one should only engage in concealed carry if there is a plausible probability that one is going to face that kind of threat - as in diamond couriers, armored car personnel, etc.
I find the argument that one needs a concealed carry permit 'just in case' there is some random, unlikely act of violence that might happen totally a sham, a fraud, a feable pretext.
I am not aware of any such predisposition to being the target of violence in your case Greg. What reason do you have to expect that you are unusually likely to be the target of violence, in a nation where the crime rate is going down and the violent crime rate in particular is going down and has been for decades?
"I've tried to be polite to you, but at this point, I have to conclude that you're either a fool or being deliberately stupid. The legal standard is that the person has to pose a threat of bodily harm or death. Someone asking a question doesn't meet that standard."
ReplyDeletePolish immigrant Robert Dziekanski was tased by Vancouver Airport authorities and died shortly thereafter. There is a wealth of information (at least from the public--the authorities are curiously reticent, 4 years after the man's untimely death). Four cops, trained professionals, regardless what you might think of them, reacted to a man who was obviously agitated BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING. Do you understand what I'm saying. Cops, the military, healthcare professionals and others who are trained to deal with violent, combative, emotionally disturbed and incoherent people--they do so daily and yet they make truly terrrible mistakes, far too routinely.
If someone is asking you a question, in a language you do not speak, and you dismiss them with a wave or turn away they might escelate the situation and get inside your fight/flight radius and suffer injury or death because of your determination that they are a danger to you. Obviously you feel that YOU personally would never make a mistake that would lead to someone being injured or killed, by you, over something that is miscontrued by you as a threat to life an limb. Good for you if you're that well trained. When was the last time you had to use your judgment in a tense, very kinetic situation where you thought a person or persons were a threat to your life and limb--and your gun made the difference? Last week, last month, last year, last decade, ever?
You people who are convinced that you can devine the intent of those who are on a public street or in a crowded subway, absent any overt act on their part, worry me.
Where do the bullets go, btw, when they miss the maybeperp? Do they evaporate? Or do you just make certain, before pulling the trigger, that there are no other persons who might be injured if you miss the person who is your target?
I'm neither a fool, nor am I being deliberately stupid. For a guy who's so sensitive about others saying mean things to him and other commenters, you're somewhat cavalier about making pronouncements about my mental and emotional state--not that it makes a lot of fucking difference to me and how I act or write.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhy is carrying just in case a sham? Is violence possible? Could someone attack me with the intent to kill or injure? If so, that explains my need or desire or right to carry.
One thing you should be aware of is that the standards for self defense are different in one state to another. Some states have a "stand your ground" standard. But really, do you expect me to attempt to outrun a bullet or a knife, if that's what I face? Yes, I have the obligation to avoid a confrontation whenever that's possible. That's not always possible.
Can we at least agree that neither one of us is an idiot? You appear to think that I'm walking the streets looking for a fight. I'm not. I know the standards of my state. If I travel, I make myself familiar with the standards and rules of wherever I'm going. Can you conceive of that as a possibility?
Greg Camp(bell), you share a Scots heritage with Laci.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think you are an idiot.
I do not agree that you have a reasonable need to carry a gun 'just in case' because the random acts of violence are infrequent enough not to justify it, in contrast to the harm done by such a large number of firearms. We have the highest number of firearms in the world - followed by Somalia. I don't want to live in a society like Somalia; I want to live in a society that has rule of law, not 'every-man(or woman)-for-himself'. If you have a job or profession that necessitates it - then fine. If you are clearly and demonstrably the target of specific violent threat, then fine.
If not, I do not object to your enjoyment of shooting sports, I do not object to someone being a collector, or a hunter - but keep it at home, and secure, if you are not going to a gun club or range, or hunting something,
My wish is to see the greatest possible reduction in ILLEGAL guns, as well as all guns used in crimes and to reduce guns used in accidents to a minimum. That includes reducing LEGAL guns as well as illegal weapons used in domestic assaults, suicides, etc. I do not advocate the banning of all guns, nor does anyone else here do so. THAT is an exaggeration that is both unfair and inaccurate.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteBut you do want to prevent me from having a weapon on my person unless I can demonstrate a need, right? Can you see how that effectively makes my handguns useless? Yes, I can own them, but only if I keep them locked up when I'm not at the range.
What we gun owners see in that is an effort to take our guns away step by step. You get us used to being without them for any purpose other than as toys, then you say to us that, see, you don't need these. . .
I don't want to submit to your approval as to whether I can carry a gun or not. The debate here is who gets to decide. I have no objection to punishing those who commit crimes. Why can't you accept that those of us who don't deserve to be left alone?
"What we gun owners see in that is an effort to take our guns away step by step."
ReplyDeleteWhich is delusional.
Saying that people must submit to some rules re: registration, sale and storage of guns is NOT confiscation. You people are paranoid and it's obvious.
Greg, given what you have written about responsibility, about oh, well, if guns are stolen too bad what damage they do - effectively, by holding the owner not responsible for how he contributed to that theft in storing his firearms, for example, YES, I do want to see that you have firearms for hunting, firearms for gun sports /recreation.
ReplyDeleteAnd NO, I don't agree that it is necessary or appropriate, or some kind of innate right for you to be carrying your firearm at all times everywhere you go. Because we are not an armed society, were never intended to be an armed society, and because an armed to the teeth society is not a polite society it is a more violent society.
I want to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals, and further the number of shootings committed by legal buyers of hand guns is not acceptable - clearly, demonstrably, there IS a problem with our current laws, as demonstrated by any comparison between our statistics on gun violence - including suicides, homicides, and accidental shootings - that other countries DO NOT HAVE.
So for those reasons, yes - I disagree that you have either right or necessity to be armed without first showing a genuine, rather than imaginary, need for a firearm on your person specifically for self-defense.
That does not change anything; a firearm is still a weapon; you still have it, so long as you use it wisely and legally, for home defense. Nothing about that kind of regulation makes a gun 'a toy'. What it DOES do is make us a society of laws and law enforcement, not a bunch of gun crazy vigilantes hell-bent on taking the law into our own hands.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteHow is my opinion delusional? Are you aware of why the subjects of Great Britain are now not allowed to own handguns? First, owners had to register their weapons. Then, along comes the government with a law banning the same. Since that government had a list of legal owners, confiscation was easy.
Of course, the people who are the real problem--criminals--never bothered to register theirs.
Will you accept a registry of questionable books that you own? If not, keep your lists off my guns.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeletePeople in the U.K. are not prohibited from owning weapons. They are required to register them and to keep track of them. They are not allowed to own handguns without good reason. The United Kingdom has fewer deaths by gunshot annually than the U.S. experiences in a busy day*.
I understand that you want your gunz, fine, keep them. You don't understand that I have no faith, none, zero, bupkis that the average person who has a gun sold to them for protection has no fucking idea what they're going to do when the time comes to make a decision.
You don't feel that you need to answer my questions--perhaps you think I'm asking them in jest, I assure you I'm not--about whether and when you've had to make that split second decision in less than optimal conditions to draw and fire your weapon. You don't think it's necessary to answer my query about where the rounds your gun discharges wind up after they are fired. This sort of behavior is quite telling.
You want me to believe that you know what's good for the rest of the world where gunz are concerned, yet you have nothing to offer in answer to my questions. And you think I'm stupid?
* Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
from wikipedia,
ReplyDelete"Gun Politics in the United Kingdom"
Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and did so even before strict gun control legislation came into force. In England and Wales (the most populous part of the United Kingdom) the rate is below the EU average, about four times lower than that of the United States, but on almost the same level as in Canada.[1] With the exception of those in Northern Ireland, UK police officers do not routinely carry firearms.[2]
Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elitist activity, although shooting sports were popular in the late 19th and early 20th Century, especially fullbore rifle events sponsored by the military and National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom to improve the general standard of marksmanship under the auspices of Defence of the Realm."
and
"Prohibited firearms[7]
The following are prohibited for civilian use:
Fully automatic or burst-fire weapons, including air guns.
Firearms disguised as another item (e.g. walking sticks, mobile telephones, etc.)
Rockets and mortars.
Air guns chambered for self-contained gas cartridges.
[edit] Licensing
With a few specialised exceptions, all firearms in the United Kingdom must be licensed on either a 'firearm certificate' (FAC) or a shotgun certificate. This was said to be under review in the early part of 2011.
and
History of gun control in the United Kingdom
There were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use.
And this:
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with fewer than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[34]
The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[35]
In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[35]
Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.[39]
Actually, what I'd like to see is closer to the Scandinavian countries, which also have very low gun crime rates.
and also from wikipedia
ReplyDeleteThe National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom (NRA) is the governing body of full bore rifle and pistol shooting sports in the United Kingdom.
History
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1859,[1] twelve years before its better known American cousin. The Association has recently added the suffix "of the United Kingdom" to its website tagline. Its founding aim was to raise the funds for an annual national rifle meeting (now known as the Imperial Meeting) "for the promotion of marksmanship in the interests of Defence of the Realm and permanence of the Volunteer Forces, Navy, Military and Air".[1]
In 1890, Queen Victoria granted the NRA a Royal Charter of Incorporation.[2]
2009 marked the 150th Anniversary of the National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom. These days the Association is primarily concerned with civilian full-bore target rifle shooting, although retaining its military heritage and close links with the British Armed Forces.[3]
In 2006, the NRA founded the National Association of Target Shooting Sports (NATSS) working group in association with the NSRA and CPSA, to explore the practicalities and benefits of a merger between the bodies. The project was shelved in July 2009.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I missed the questions that you've asked me on this page. I'll answer them now.
No, I have never had to use my handgun to defend myself. I've also never needed my airbag in my truck, if that matters.
Yes, I am responsible for any bullet that leaves my gun. That's why I load hollowpoints and practice.
The comments by you and Dog Gone about the United Kingdom merely go to support my point that registration leads to confiscation and restriction.
And yet you completely ignore the comparative absence of gun homicides or gun crime.
ReplyDeleteThat demonstrates that you have little or no concern for others, or for having a civil and far less violent society so long as you satisfy your gun fetish.
That is emotion over reason, it is a vigilante attitude rather than rule of law, it is backward and uncivilized.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWe can spend hours discussing the relative levels of one kind or another of violence in the United States and in other nations. Comparative sociology is a difficult subject, since we'd have to account for cultural, economic, legal, and structural differences between the two.
I do care for others. Because I do, I want to have a society that values individual liberty. Liberty comes at a price--I realize that. But Americans so far have been willing to pay that price for what we have. You and I obviously have different values.
By the way, I do not have a gun fetish. I do not attribute magical qualities to firearms, nor do I derive sexual pleasure from them.
" Liberty comes at a price--I realize that."
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't. Do you realize that something like 30,000 people are killed with guns every year in this country?
THAT and the scores, if not hundreds of thousands of crimes featuring guns, is the price of gunzloonz' fetish and fever dreams about single-handedly righting the world's wrongs.
Ya wanna fix the world? volunteer at a VA hospital, teach someone to read, deliver food to shut-ins. Those activities actually do some good. Carrying a gun, so you can "fix" society's problems, doesn't.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've spent the last twelve years teaching algebra and English composition and literature on the high school and college level. Is that good enough for you?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI've spent the last twelve years teaching algebra and English composition and literature on the high school and college level. Is that good enough for you?
November 9, 2011 11:38 PM
For free? No, I'd guess you were getting a paycheck.
Carry a gun to class? I mean them schools with allathem scary mightbeblackpeople? You work in oneathose and you ain't packin'? Whattaya nuts?
Greg said,
ReplyDelete"By the way, I do not have a gun fetish. I do not attribute magical qualities to firearms, nor do I derive sexual pleasure from them. "
Well, I believe you about the sexual pleasure.
GregC
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I do not have a gun fetish. I do not attribute magical qualities to firearms, nor do I derive sexual pleasure from them.
Magical thinking about guns, as in an excessive or exaggerated belief in how much safer they make you, or in the extent to which they are powerful and give you power. Magical thinking in that you also appear to overestimate threats rather than a more objective risk assessment, in your need and benefit from one.
Festish