The Boston Globe reports on another pro-gun demonstration on a college campus.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat. The really fearful ones ar those who feel they cannot leave the house without a gun. These are folks who for the most part do not enter dangerous neighborhoods, do not carry large amounts of cash, and lead perfectly normal lives. Yet, their fear of that highly unlikely attack is so great they decide a gun is the answer, in spite of evidence and commonsense to the contrary.Jardis and Mozingo maintain that the university system’s policy banning firearms flies in the face of state law and the state and federal constitutions. They say they look forward to returning to Grafton County Superior Court Tuesday to argue against a permanent injunction barring them from bringing weapons onto state campuses.
Jardis would not say if he was carrying a concealed firearm. Instead, he said several times, “I just want to point out that no one knows if I’m carrying a gun.’’
“Yeah, and that’s terrifying,’’ replied one female student.
Now comes a female student who says she's "terrified" of guys like that. Is this worthy of being mocked? Does this indicate that she's the unreasonable one? No, of course not.
The reason pro-gun voices so readily mock people who speak up like that is because they've been practiced in turning the tables whenever possible. The are masters at accusing the others of what they themselves are guilty of. From there it just monkey-like repetition, and I would imagine the less gifted among them actually begin to believe it. They've lost touch with reality.
Look at the guy in the foreground of the picture, I think that's Bradley Jardis. Does he have a bit of that Timothy-McVeigh intensity, or what? And the other guy, what's he remind you of? I realize reading facial expressions is not an exact science, but isn't that part of the situational awareness all the gun lovers keep talking about. Are they the only ones who can do it?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Damn, I thought it was a picture of Justin Timberlake and Jake Gyllanhaal.
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought you were going to tell me that Jardis and Mozingo sent us greetings from Alpha Centauri. . .
ReplyDeleteCouldn't resist.
The looks on their faces are of two guys who aren't used to being on television. That makes me trust them more.
The State of New Hampshire is a shall-issue state, but that means that those two, if they have carry licenses, have been through a background check. That's more than many college students have had, as I well know. Besides, there would also be some faculty members who have licenses, as I also well know. We're not talking about a bunch of loonies under the influence here.
" Does he have a bit of that Timothy-McVeigh intensity, or what?"
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is that?
There are very few documented instances of concealed carry licensees "snapping" and shooting someone. And there are equally few instances of concealed carry licensees missing a criminal and injuring a bystander. We are talking on the order of a couple dozen per year maximum across the entire nation. Of course there are 100s of thousands of violent crimes and something like 25,000 homicides every year across the nation.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I find most interesting. The anti-gun crowd gives so much credence to someone terrified of a concealed carry licensee sitting next to them in class ... because they could be one of those few dozen victims every year nationally at the hands of concealed carry licensee. But when a concealed carry licensee expresses their fear of being one of several hundred thousand violent crime victims nationally every year, they are cowards.
Why the double standard?
GC continues to blusterThere are very few documented instances of concealed carry licensees "snapping" and shooting someone. And there are equally few instances of concealed carry licensees missing a criminal and injuring a bystander. We are talking on the order of a couple dozen per year maximum across the entire nation. Of course there are 100s of thousands of violent crimes and something like 25,000 homicides every year across the nation.
ReplyDeleteDo provide your sources. You seem to be very good at making up stuff, but very poor at producing credible sources.
Still waiting on an historical source for your silly guns in belt.
We think many of you - and you personally Greg - are dangerous lunatics.
We distrust all the gun owners, not just the concealed carry, doing stupid, dangerous, and violent things with guns.
That would be because you do those things, as a group.
That is why we have the gun violence stats we do. It is a rational response to objective fact to worry you gun nuts are NUTS.
My error - that last comment should have been directed to Capn Crunchy brains... not GC.
ReplyDeletePlease, Dog Gone and Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteStop confusing me for others. My comments are posted under my name. It shouldn't be too hard to distinguish one from the other.
On the question of the photograph, I'm tired of the subject. You've been given all that I'm going to offer. Let it go.
Capn Crunch has some interesting ideas.
ReplyDelete"We are talking on the order of a couple dozen per year maximum across the entire nation."
Hell, there are more than that reported on this blog alone.
And here I thought only I made stuff up that sound good for my argument.
Dog gone said "We distrust all the gun owners, not just the concealed carry, doing stupid, dangerous, and violent things with guns."
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, in other topic comments you have mentioned you have/had a CCW. Do you not trust yourself? Seems a bit of a double standard.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe Violence Policy Center, a group that can't stand the idea of private citizens carrying handguns, tracks these things. They are motivated to find every example of a licensee committing a crime with a gun. Their number: about 300. That's since 2007.
I call that tiny.
I call that 300 too many, on top of all the other occurrences of gun violence that are too many. Those were unnecessary - ALL OF THEM.
ReplyDeletePJ - have it, don't use it.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSo you'll give a partial answer to PJ. We all would like to know why you have a license and if you've ever used it, why you did so. Also, how you were qualified to carry. Why you think that you're better than we.
Now that three hundred is over a period of four years and out of six million plus licensees. Name me another group that is as safe.
You can't demand absolute safety in the real world. But 300/6,000,000 in four years is much closer to perfection than would seem possible.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteWe all would like to know why you have a license and if you've ever used it, why you did so. Also, how you were qualified to carry. Why you think that you're better than we.
I've written about it repeatedly.
If you really want to know that badly, I've made it clear what you need to do first.
I'm still waiting.
I don't 'think' I'm better than you are; I know it.
I don't shake with fear if I don't have a firearm, and I have enjoyed a fairly interesting life with very closely calculated risk taking....all without a need for a gun at every moment on the unlikely chance I might encounter a bad guy.
So........if you want an answer so badly to your question you have an abundance of options.
You can go back through a WHOLE lot of comments and posts here in the archives;
OR you can comply with my simple requests which should be easy to do according to your boasting about what you know.
You don't of course, but that is what makes this fun.
I clearly have a much better definition of who and when it is appropriate to shoot someone, and I don't pretend I'm shooting fantasy characters, the way you do.
You're silly, and worse, you take yourself and the other gun loons seriously. You shouldn't.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to go back through every article ever written here, and the search function yielded nothing useful. I'm not the only one asking this question, either. You could give a link to the particular article and save everyone a lot of time.
I've already answered your questions. I've given you answer after answer. The fact that you don't accept them is not my problem.
No, you have not answered the questions.
ReplyDeleteI requested you provide an historical source, not your gun loon hero who is not an historian, and who does not provide any verifiable historic sources HE used.
Or do you once again not understand the distinction between primary sources and secondary sources and just-plain-fucking-made-up sources for self-promotion?
The issue with the photo is not the picture itself but rather your photo as an example of being unable to separate fact from fantasy, including Hollywood fantasy regarding the word shootist, but also the tradition of the cavalry draw and holsters designed for it.
I have yet to see you provide the legal citation for ANY of the cases you cite, the ramblings of Massad Ayoob don't count about a trial.
I have yet to see yo provide any rational basis OR credible self-defense sources for your position that anyone attempting to relieve you of property is a threat, much less a threat justifying lethal force - an important distinction which once again you fail to understand, as you fail to understand and therefore to apply mens rea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
You have not answered what has been asked of you; you have provided rather substandard and unacceptable responses, based on the same standard to which we first and foremost hold ourselves, and to which we hold other commenters.
DG had a restraining order out on some stalker or the other so she got a gun on the advice of a friend. She claims she has a license to carry it and was certified in its use, but never posted anything that would allow someone to confirm it.
ReplyDeleteNot quite Anonymous; you have significant parts of your version of my CCW incorrect. I'm not sure what you expect me to provide, however I write using a blognomen precisely because I do not wish to provide more personal details here.
That would be because of threatening and abusive conduct by some commenters, which have included threats against one of my blogging partners on Penigma - and his spouse and children, as well as the more recent crap there from Serrh8tred which resulted in a complaint to blogger that appears to have been effective, but not so effective that I choose to be less private. I know of similar incidents where at least one of my co-bloggers has had to do the same.
So - no, I'm not going to provide you any further proof.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, I suspect that Democommie won't pester you for more details about your personal life. Favoritism is great when it's in your favor.
Your life was threatened? You got a gun and a carry license to defend yourself? Gee, so you're able to make intelligent decisions about carrying and using a gun; you'd never miss your target and hit someone else; you'd be able to draw from concealment and shoot to stop a threat, but the rest of us are incapable of doing the same.
No wonder you don't want to talk about it. Until you can explain how you're qualified, but the rest of us aren't, I'll call you a hypocrite.
And if you'll check, you'll see that I've added more to answer your question. As I said, there aren't many sources that you would consider acceptable, since gun fighting and carry techniques aren't the popular subjects in historical research right now, having little to appeal to those who study oppressed groups. I've given you what I have at hand. The rest came as a product of my own reading into the subject, but I didn't take notes, not expecting to have to give citations. If you read the Wikipedia article on Hickok, you'll see references to his carrying his revolvers in a belt or a sash and to his use of the cavalry draw. Massad Ayoob also discusses that latter technique, and since he's a firearms instructor, I would imagine that he knows at least his own subject.
I agree with not sharing too many details about one's private life on the internet.
ReplyDelete