Sunday, May 23, 2010

Fear Motivates

I'm always fascinated by the pro-gun guys' explanations of why they carry. Usually it's disguised as a calm and rational decision, often likened the carrying of any other tool. Sometimes they try to emphasize the crime problem and the likelihood of their becoming a victim of violence. Bob S. is one of the best at this. Here's one of many examples. Here's one of my many answers.

A few days ago we were treated to a rare glimpse into the true reason. Mike W. included the following line in a post about his trip to North Carolina for the convention last week.

Had I flown I likely would not have carried, but there was no way I was going to drive 9 hours alone & unarmed throughout the night.

I'm sure Mike W. and Bob S., for that matter, would be able to offer lengthy denials, but my contention has always been that they suffer from inordinate fears. The above statement is so telling, it's so revealing, that it's embarrassing. A grown man afraid to drive "throughout the night" without a gun!

It wouldn't be so embarrassing except he's talking about driving on I-95, for crying out loud. That's one of the best highways in the country. There are no detours through any inner cities, you've got that ring road that goes right around Washington D.C.

If the assignment had been to drive through Newark NJ, make your way up to the George Washington Bridge, go over into Harlem, then make your way over to some dicey section of the Bronx, I could understand it. But this, is pathetic.

Some have asked, "So what? What if we are motivated by fear?" Well the problem is this. When the gun owner is operating on unreasonable fears, they cannot be trusted to handle the grave responsibility of carrying a gun. These are people who may make life or death decisions based upon their perceptions and judgment. An example of Mike W.'s judgment is "but there was no way I was going to drive 9 hours alone & unarmed throughout the night."

What's your opinion? Are you concerned that the more nervous and skittish among the gun owners may do more harm than good?

Please leave a comment.

29 comments:

  1. "It wouldn't be so embarrassing except he's talking about driving on I-95, for crying out loud."

    Wait a minute? Is this the same I-95 that you say is the "Iron Pipeline"? Where criminals move mass quantities of weapons and drugs?

    Guess what? There was no way I was going to drive 6 hours through West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina on I-77 unarmed--and I didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "When the gun owner is operating on unreasonable fears, they cannot be trusted to handle the grave responsibility of carrying a gun."

    Can we hold gun controllers to that same standard? Taking into account Carolyn McCarthy's unreasonable fear of barrel shrouds (those shoulder things that go up), she cannot be trusted to handle the grave responsibility of writing or voting for anti-gun legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. IOW, Mike W and FWM admit they are not "law-abiding" citizens. Basically, when it comes to guns, they think they have the right to disobey whatever laws they choose.

    As the Bruce Schneier essay shows--when when submits to irrational fears, one cannot help but make poor decisions.

    In the case of Mike W. and FWM--neither wore protective helmets or a HANS device. Such things would have protected them on I-95 far better than a gun.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  4. Taking into account Carolyn McCarthy's unreasonable fear of barrel shrouds (those shoulder things that go up), she cannot be trusted to handle the grave responsibility of writing or voting for anti-gun legislation.

    How many Congressmen are experts on anything? By AzRed's silly logic--Congressmen should be forbidden to vote on or write (in reality, no Congressman writes anything) legislation on anything.

    As an example, NRA hero, John Thune. Thune has been a politician his entire life--he has no experience in running a business, in the law, in economic matters, in the military. If we were to employ AzRed's "logic," Thune shouldn't be allowed to do anything except hold down a desk chair.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  5. "When the gun owner is operating on unreasonable fears, they cannot be trusted to handle the grave responsibility of carrying a gun."

    Ah, good ol’ Joseph Heller logic again: People who are crazy should be forbidden from carrying a gun, but only crazy people would want to carry a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jadegold: “How many Congressmen are experts on anything?”

    There is a big difference between not being an expert and having no freakin’ clue on a subject like McCarthy. She has put zero effort into learning about her signature policy stance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "How many Congressmen are experts on anything? By AzRed's silly logic--Congressmen should be forbidden to vote on or write (in reality, no Congressman writes anything) legislation on anything."

    It has nothing to do with lack of expertise and everything to do with Carolyn McCarthy's irrational fear of a piece of plastic.

    Again, you're building straw men, Jade.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TS, The key words are "inordinate" and "unreasonable." It's not the silly comparison you made at all.

    AztecRed, Carolyn McCarthy is not an example of this, Mike W. is. The Congresswoman suffered a tragic attack on her family, her fears are understandable. The fact that she didn't know what a barrel shroud is, was nothing more than embarrassing. You're distorting the whole thing saying she fears barrel shrouds.

    Mike W. on the other hand, tipped his hand. To me that's inordinate fear. And I would be very concerned about a person with that kind of perception and judgment making life and death decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "AztecRed, Carolyn McCarthy is not an example of this, Mike W. is. The Congresswoman suffered a tragic attack on her family, her fears are understandable. The fact that she didn't know what a barrel shroud is, was nothing more than embarrassing."

    Tragic, yes. A legitimate reason to penalise the law-abiding? No way.

    I think if anti-gun politicians and groups simply were not experts in these things, I think it would be okay. But after being corrected several times, they're still on about "rapid fire", "high capacity" and half a dozen other statements that are half-truths at best.

    There's a huge difference between not being an expert and lying your arse off, and although both sides have some experience of both, the antis are true masters of the art.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry to doublepost, but I just want to change one thing.

    It seems that "law-abiding" is a bit of an extreme term. If a group of weapons is banned, citing criminal use as an excuse, and a gun owner refuses to turn them in because they weren't to blame, thay can't really be called "law-biding".

    So, I think from now on, "innocent" should be used. It's accurate and cannot be taken any other way.

    After all, most gun owners do not encourage crime, and do not force criminals to act. The only thing that has been used to force blame on them is their legitimate opposition to irresponsible laws, something that no honest person would use as an object of blame.

    So, from now on, it's innocent gun owners.

    (sorry 'bout length, thought it was worth clarifying).

    ReplyDelete
  11. "IOW, Mike W and FWM admit they are not "law-abiding" citizens. Basically, when it comes to guns, they think they have the right to disobey whatever laws they choose."

    Not that you'll respond truthfully, but what laws do think I broke on my trip?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let's take TP's comments one by one.

    Tragic, yes. A legitimate reason to penalise the law-abiding? No way

    Are the law-abiding actually being penalized? No way. Removing a firearm that has no practical purpose--aside from combat--isn't punishing anyone except for those who feel a need to own an offensive comabt weapon.

    But after being corrected several times, they're still on about "rapid fire", "high capacity" and half a dozen other statements that are half-truths at best.

    Actually, the AWB language was crafted not by politicos and/or their staffers but by LEOs. Again, these weapons and their associated functionality is suited for killing lots of people--not for functions such as self-defense or hunting.

    So, I think from now on, "innocent" should be used. It's accurate and cannot be taken any other way.

    Classic TP. If the definition of a word or term doesn't support the NRA--redefine it.

    What TP and other gunloons forget is that all rights have responsibilities. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you wish to obey and which ones you don't because you disagree.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jade,

    You forgot to answer my question.

    What laws did I break on my trip?

    ReplyDelete
  14. You forgot to answer my question.
    What laws did I break on my trip?


    Forget it FatWhiteMan. It was just another personal attack from JadeGold, which MikeB is apparently still going to allow.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeB: “TS, The key words are "inordinate" and "unreasonable." It's not the silly comparison you made at all.”

    Really? You post history has been pretty clear that it is “unreasonable” for anyone to carry a gun anywhere at anytime. Please correct me if I am wrong. What circumstances do you find it reasonable for someone to carry a gun in public?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jadegold: “Again, these weapons and their associated functionality is suited for killing lots of people--not for functions such as self-defense or hunting.”

    Being able to fire a followup shot without taking action to manually reloading the next round is an extremely valuable in self-defenses (because that’s what we are talking about- semi-autos). If you think these “AW features” play some extra role in killing over their semi-auto functionality, then you should be able to answer my question to you in the Calderon thread about how flash suppressors and bayonet lugs increased cartel murders.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Forget it FatWhiteMan. It was just another personal attack from JadeGold, which MikeB is apparently still going to allow.

    Bingo. Jade is a sad little man. I guess it's good for him that he's living in a no-carry state.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jade is a sad little man. I guess it's good for him that he's living in a no-carry state.

    Yes, I'm sooo sad. For whatever reason I don't fear everything and don't have to carry a weapon with me everywhere.

    Of course, I don't live in Mom's basement like Mike W.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't have to either (and in fact I don't)

    I CHOOSE to, of course anti-gunners hate that icky freedom of choice thing.

    OTOH, you are so fearful that you seek to deny freedom of choice and force everyone to live in your utopian world of disarmament.

    So who is actually fearful, the person who makes an informed decision, an individual CHOICE, to carry a firearm (for himself and only himself) or the person wants to force his fellow Americans to live by his choices because of prejudice and fear?

    ReplyDelete
  20. said, "What circumstances do you find it reasonable for someone to carry a gun in public?"

    I gave an example in my post, remember the trip from Newark through Harlem into the Bronx. I also gave an example of inordinate fear: driving down I-95 at night.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I gave an example in my post, remember the trip from Newark through Harlem into the Bronx.

    How sadly ironic, the places where you believe it would be appropriate (and not paranoid) to carry a firearm are the very places (NY and NJ) where it has been made illegal to do so.

    More proof of the failure of gun control, this time from MikeB's own mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MikeB: “I gave an example in my post, remember the trip from Newark through Harlem into the Bronx.”

    Are you saying you are not against concealed carry completely, but just the level to which some people take it? How about if you live in Newark, Harlem or the Bronx? Would you support always being armed? What if you live in Otis McDonald’s neighborhood?

    ReplyDelete
  23. You also won't answer my question Jade.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TS, I probably wouldn't support it, but I'd understand the desire to do it, unlike what Mike W. said about driving through the night.

    Mike W., You're right. I didn't notice I gave examples of strict gun places. That is funny. I was just resorting to what I know.

    How about this: you're travelling through the Algiers section of New Orleans at night, by yourself and in a car that's been giving you trouble. You could very well end up walking.

    Is that a better example to illustrate my point?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Guy Ohki, Thanks for that idea, law-abiding vs. innocent.

    ReplyDelete

  26. Is that a better example to illustrate my point?


    I think the point has already been illustrated. Just not with the results you wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  27. " The Congresswoman suffered a tragic attack on her family, her fears are understandable. "

    Did a barrel shroud attack her family? Was there a barrel shroud on the gun used to attack her family? Would the presence of a barrel shroud have mad the attack deadlier? If not, her fear is irrational.

    If anything McCarthy is the poster child of irrationality and as far as I am concerned, she is mentally unfit to occupy public office.

    Let's say a politician is mugged by a black man. If that politician used that event to justify reinstating Jim Crow laws, we'd rightfully say they went off the deep end. Carolyn McCarthy is no different. She is damaged goods, plain and simply.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mike - Since this post is nothing but a personal attack on me and those are not allowed here I expect you'll delete your own post any time now.

    Right?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mike W., You're wrong when you say this post is ONLY a personal attack against you. It's a bit more than that actually. In fact it's generated a good discussion in some of the comments. Of course this is a discussion you can't seem to participate in except for one liners that usually get deleted for containing only nastiness. Example: "Bingo. Jade is a sad little man. I guess it's good for him that he's living in a no-carry state."

    Some of your others which I deleted contained even less substance and even more nastiness. In fact, you're why I put the comment moderation back on, but of course you knew that.

    You're right that other people do engage in this kind of thing and don't get their comments deleted, at least not for the most part. The reason is that no one is as big an offender as you are.

    ReplyDelete