From the Trenches
Back in the late 19th century, brass knuckles and small pocket revolvers were popular for personal defense. One Catskills gun maker decided to combine these two concepts in the form of a compact protection tool that could be used as both. His name was James Reid, and his little knuckleduster revolvers were simply referred to as the “My Friend” series.
Notice how the secure and responsible gun nut compulsively chews his nails. Of course he doesn't show us that in the video, but judging by the difficulty he had in extracting that spent shell, he puts a lot of time into it. Just imagine the gun oil and powder residue he ingests.
Maybe this gives us another insight into what's wrong with these guys. Besides paranoia, inferiority, insecurity and various other mental disorders, perhaps they often suffer from pica.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You do realize that this type of insults, schlock analysis, and smearing just reveals you to be a pitiful idiot, don't you?
ReplyDeleteNo, I thought it was pretty witty and funny. Did I hit a nerve?
DeleteThe fact that you find the above post witty and funny shows that you wouldn't recognize wit if it were to bite you in the ass.
DeleteHit a nerve?
Nah! I'm perfectly secure in who I am. I just come around here because it's fun to watch you make a total ass and fool of yourself on a daily basis. Especially since you're rising to ever higher levels of insanity as the weeks drag on and you see victory slipping from your grasp.
Actually, I believe that whatever falls by the wayside this time around, AWB, background checks, whatever, will eventually become the law of the land. The conservatives, Republicans and gun-rights folks, which like it or not, pretty much overlap, have had their shot. You're days are numbered.
DeleteYou're [sic] days are numbered.
DeleteWatch out, Anon! I think he's threatening to kill you with bad grammar.
;-)
Speaking of "witty and funny" . . .
Nice, Kurt!
DeleteMike, If we said things like "Your days are numbered," you would interpret that as a threat--especially because we used proper grammar, which clearly makes it a true threat because we obviously know what we're doing.
You need to seek treatment for this gradual morphing into E.N.
As for your comment about how we totally overlap with republicans, clearly you have remained willfully blind to the indications that many of us are fairly libertarian and close to giving up on pulling the Republicans our way. And to the indications that Democrats are less pro gun control. To the increasing number of liberals, hippies, hipsters, and others buying guns. Etc. etc. etc.
Let's address the notion that citizens who want to be armed against violent crime are paranoid.
ReplyDeletePolice agencies reported 1.24 million violent crimes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2010. We also know that many victims never report their attack to police and the actual number is considerably higher, but we will stick to easily verifiable data. Assuming the U.S. population is 310 million, that means at least one in 250 people were the victims of violent crime in 2010. Now for the much more important question: how many citizens will be victims of violent crime over the course of 40 years -- which covers a person from age 21 to age 61 -- optimal years for such a citizen to want to be legally armed. The answer is about one in six!
Did you catch that? About 1 in 6 adults who live to be 61 years old will be victims of violent crime in the U.S. So MikeB, do you still consider a person to be "paranoid" when they want to be prepared for an event that will affect at least 1 out of 6 people?
This analysis gets really scary when you actually account for the total number of violent crimes (not just crimes reported to police) and demographics that experience much higher rates of violent crime such as people in densely populated urban areas.
I can only interpret MikeB's silence as a tacit admission to the accuracy and truth of my post above.
DeleteThat mean's MikeB's comments and conclusions are at best incorrect and at worst nefarious. Which is it MikeB?
Wrong, I was busy yesterday and didn't have time to follow up.
DeleteI'm glad you mentioned the number of violent crimes, about half of which are done with guns. This sad statistic far out-numbers any reasonable estimate of yealy DGUs, which proves that guns do more harm than good.
Of course, this is exactly why the nail-biting fanatics insist on those absurd estimates of millions of DGUs, that's their deceitful way of justifying gun ownership.
No, Mike. I justify it by noting that it is a longstanding right of any free man to own weapons--a right that was recognized at common law for hundreds of years and codified in our Second Amendment.
DeleteWhy do I need to own a gun? Because Fuck you, that's why.
You keep saying guns do more harm than good, but you back that up by citing "any reasonable estimate of yearly DGU's." You never settle on a reasonable number, except that whatever it is, it MUST be less than the number of crimes.
Not only do you refuse to acknowledge many DGU's, you also discount all of the other good guns do for people in procuring meat, eliminating pests, providing a fun hobby, etc. etc. etc.
You can't win without deceit and stacking the deck by defining all terms and numbers according to your preconceptions.
Maybe you missed it but I put the number of truly legitimate DGUs at about 500 a year. What I meant by the more reasonable estimates are the ones that say around 100,000.
DeleteIn order to achieve all that good, you gun owners are continually supplying your criminal counterparts with the tools of their trade. And that results in a half-a-million crimes each year, year in and year out.
You can be proud of your role in that.
The most conservative of the reasonable estimates is 108,000 per annum. Your numbers are ridiculously low and are based on pure speculation so as to be unworthy of consideration.
DeleteThe majority of gun deaths are suicides. We've shown you that gun ownership rates have no correlation with rates of suicide. Taking guns away doesn't reduce the number of deaths. It just changes the method employed.
Of the remaining deaths, a large percentage are criminal on criminal. As long as we lock up the surviving person, that's a win-win.
Regardless of how we divide up the numbers, though, the number of defensive gun uses is still at least three times the number of deaths.
I repeat, 500,000 gun crimes per year means GUNS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
DeleteYou have numbers, and we have numbers. You do realize that a battle of statistics will put most people to sleep, right?
DeleteCriminals have many ways of getting guns and still will get them, regardless of the laws you pass. Sure, it may be hard enough that only the serious criminals bother, but once a populace is disarmed, criminals with knives, bats, or just groups of them with their fists and feet can do as much or more harm on the declawed populace as they do now.
DeleteScreaming don't make it so, Mike.
DeleteSo you see a video about an interesting piece of history--made in New York State, no less--and all you can do is speculate wildly about the psychology of the person who made the video?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I've tried to be polite to you, but you are without doubt one of the most contemptable people I know.
When Pooch, DG, and DC were posting regularly here, Mikeb's contemptibility factor seemed much softer, however, in the last several months it has increased in plangency. Almost to the point of being unbearable.
Deleteorlin sellers
It's not all that often that I put on my sarcasm hat, all in an attempt at poking a bit of fun at you guys. That earns me the title of "one of the most contemptible?"
DeleteDo you bite your nails, Greg? Tell us the truth.
You're confusing sarcasm with schlock psychology, libel, and juvenile name calling.
DeleteJust the same as you and the others confuse sarcasm and wit with gloating over the dead before they're even buried.
The shoe fits.
Mikeb, I called you contemptable because you use ersatz pop psychology and schoolyard taunts to violate the rights of good citizens. Then you weasel around by saying, just kidding.
DeleteTell you what, put a real picture of yourself up for our consideration. You've seen me. I don't hide. I post under my own name. Are you afraid?
To answer your impertinent question more directly, though, Mikeb, since I just finished assembling a reloading bench and attaching my reloading press and case trimmer, I'm sure I have a few nicks and scratches. Poor Dog Gone will be in horrors, since I used a saw, a drill, and a sander. Of course, the fact that I'm loading my own ammunition may give her an apoplexy.
DeleteWell there you go, Mikeb--yet another way to identify people who must be kept disarmed. Yep, from now on, every gun sale (excuse me--every gun transfer) must include a close inspection of the would-be transferee's fingernails. If they look a bit ragged, the guy (or gal) is obviously a ticking time bomb, and must be rendered disarmed for life (but not removed from free society--such ticking time bombs are obviously only dangerous if they get guns).
ReplyDeleteIf someone doesn't want a life sentence of defenselessness and helplessness against assailants (but hey--a "life sentence" under such conditions may very well end up being quite short), all he or she has to do is lay off the nail chewing. What could be more "reasonable" than that?
See? I can do the gun-hating fanatical nut-job thing, too!
Don't get a hangnail. Don't chip your fingernail moving furniture. And by all means, go to a manicurist regularly.
DeleteMikeb, for your benefit, even though I doubt you'll profit from it, I'll explain again why I called you contemptable:
ReplyDeleteWe're here discussing important issues--the questions of basic rights, how a society ought to be organized, how freedom is balanced with safety, and so forth. We also discuss matters of historical interest. Consider, for example, that the existence of a firearm such as the one shown in this video illustrates how gun ownership and carry was taken as assumed, not something for hot debate.
Instead of sticking to matters of consequence, you jump immediately to fingernails. Do you see the problem here?
Well, not really. If I jumped "immediately to fingernails" in every post or even once a day, now THAT would be contemptible. But the ocassional foray into the land of humor, no that's not contemptible.
DeleteYou must be inspired by your friend Kurt the Superman. He likes to use exaggerated words to describe things. Just like his use of "abomination" and "atrocity," your use of "contemptible" is not quite appropriate.
Just like his use of "abomination" and "atrocity," your use of "contemptible" is not quite appropriate.
ReplyDeleteLook out, Greg--the Language Queen says you're using words inappropriately. Who knows--if you keep it up, you might be threatened with having your comment deleted.
Oh, the humanity!
;-)
I've taught college English for over a decade and have been a published writer for almost that long. I know what words mean, and I use them deliberately.
Delete