I started to make a comment on the post just below this one but then decided it was getting tangenital to the post and decided to put it in a separate post.
Mikeb302000 has often asked about the genuine DGU, as in, "how many". When I asked that question in a comment a day or two ago, the reply from one of the gunzloonz was that a lot of them go unreported. I'll have to call, "bullshit!" on that one. I f those DGU's were anywhere near as frequent as lying scumbags like John Lott would have us believe them to be then there would be sections in newspapers, something like, "Strapped Living" with heartwarming stories about uparmed vigilantes doin' their neighborly perpblastin' as a form of community service.
The reality is that wannabe vigilantes are carrying guns, legally or illegally, every day, everywhere in this country. The number of DGU's are STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, as are the number of home invasions, armed robberies that result in gunshot wounds or deaths and a laundry list of other situations that the gunzloonz want us to believe happen 24/7/365 everywhere.
Statistical insignificance is not the same thing as "never happens" so we look at cost, frequency of incidence and other data to come up with whether or not, "statistically insignificant" events need to be monitored and, if possible, controlled in some way.
The self-reports by gunzloonz of needing to haz teh gunz when they walk their dogs in unlit parks near housing projects in the Boston area are noted. I used to work in Boston,. in the Financial district during a period when there was a spate of intimidation robberies. Young african american men in a group would approach a lone pedestrian and ASK for their money and other valuables. A jacket would be pulled aside to reveal a gun butt and the "request" would be honored. The "crime wave" continued until the Boston PD finally got the information needed to shut it down. Nobody was killed by the young toughs or by vigilantes. While all of this was going on, I was walking those same streets at the same time of day. I'm not a tough guy, I'm not a self-defense expert, I am--generally--aware of my surroundings and people that are nearby. I carried a backpack that contained my laptop and other items that brought its weight up to 15-20 pounds. In the event of someone becoming aggressive I was quite prepared to use it as a bargaining chip or a defensive weapon. If I had felt that I needed a gun to work in Boston, I would not have worked in Boston.
People who tell me that they are guaranteed the right of self-defense and the use of deadly force always assure me that they are good judges of character and aware of their surroundings, etc.,. Considering, however, their reaction to people that seem "off" to them when one happens to cross their path, I'm not sanguine about their judgment.
Those people who insist on CCW being part of their daily wardrobe often attempt to justify their actions by alluding to the DGU and other "benefits to society" of having a polite and armed populace. The numbers do not support their contention.
I disagree with the premise that firearms are necessary to keep ME safe. I know, with absolute certainty, that every person who gets wounded or killed by a gun has not been saved. When people tell me that their desire to carry gunz anywhere they want to is a sacred, inviolable right that can NEVER, EVER be limited then I know I'm wasting my time. Those folks are not exercising their right, they're giving in to their fear.
But Democommie, those young thugs had a constitutional right to carry their firearms.
ReplyDeleteI think it is awful that anyone would want to infringe upon a thugs right to carry concealed.
Even better, we can change the stand your ground laws so that those young thugs can't be prosecuted.
Even though a DGU is unlikely, I know that the gun fairies would come to the aid of the poor law abiding citizen.
I've seen the light!
Au contraire, Laci The Dog. Boston is oneathemthere DGLS* places where only people like MAssivelyself-absorbedGunzguy can carry with impunity.
ReplyDelete* Draconian Gunz Lawz States
"I know, with absolute certainty, that every person who gets wounded or killed by a gun has not been saved."
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Some of them have been robbed.
You're right. Some of them have been robbed.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why we want to see criminals can get their hands on guns!
Aztec Red:
ReplyDeleteI forgot in the recent past, while watching Greg Camp self-immolate in the burnin' stoopit, just how much of an idiot you are. Thanks for reminding me. I see that you're Still usin' that sexist gunz fetish image.
Oh, Democommie, I'm not a pile of cinders, and you wouldn't know good sense if it came up and introduced itself to you.
ReplyDeleteYou mocked the idea of walking one's dog in a dark park near a housing project, but really, isn't the goal of all of us to make it safe to be anywhere one has a legal right to be?
I don't see guns as the only solution to the problem of crime, but they are a part of the solution. And carrying a gun is not a sign of fear. Fear would be hiding under one's bed.
No, Greg Camp, fear is letting the conditions in the world make you think that a gun will keep you safe. I don't hide under my bed, I don't carry a gun.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
ReplyDeleteI never said that a gun will keep me safe. A gun, used skillfully, may keep me safe in the rare event that it becomes necessary. How is that being fearful?
"I never said that a gun will keep me safe."
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
"A gun, used skillfully, may keep me safe in the rare event that it becomes necessary. How is that being fearful?"
Forgetting about the first sentence; it "may keep me safe" is nothing like your previous comments. Does that also mean that you may make a mistake and shoot someone who isn't posing a threat to you? Because I hear uncertainty creeping in here. Absent total certainty about what happens when you pull a gun out of your pocket, waistband or holster you should just leave the fucking thing at home. That you cling to the notion that you're safer with it than without it is, in a word, irrational. You have no data to back up your assertion. You have apochryphal statistics drawn for who knows where to "support" your assertions. Opinion is not evidence.
greg doesn't acknowledge that it is silly to carry around a deadly weapon for a 'rare event' where it may or may not be useful and where he may or may not correctly identify the appropriate use, and where he may wrongly harm another person, or where he may injure himself, and where he may find himself in trouble with the law (either criminal or civil) for his actions.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is fearful. It is an irrational and emotional act that is far riskier than the possible benefits. It results from blind faith in an unrealistic expectation of what that firearm is and what it can and cannot do.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou call me fearful and silly, but you've said that you took a carry class. Presumably, you carried a handgun. How was it a useful thing for you to do, but not for the rest of us?
I don't see how you can continue to call the rest of us irresponsible when you don't know us. You don't know how much training we've had, and you don't have any means other than on-line discussions for judging our capabilities or rationality. If you were once or still are one of us (someone who carries a handgun), tell us why. Tell us how you justified doing so.
I actually agree with Greg, that walking a dog at night near a housing project might best be done armed.
ReplyDeleteBut first that person needs to be highly qualified and trained, which is far from the case now.
I'm savoring this moment, Mikeb. Cheers!
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"I'm savoring this moment, Mikeb. Cheers!
December 12, 2011 4:14 PM"
He means ALL gunzloonz, you moron, something that is anathema to your cherished position of willful ignorance.