Texas Chainsawofficers There Discovered What Was a Grizzly Work of Art Soundbite

 I know that conventional cyberspace wisdom says "don't feed the trolls," only sometimes ya just gotta. And – similar him or not – mikeb isn't really a troll. He just believes that the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, private, civil, and Constitutional correct to keep and bear arms should be reserved for only some people. Commenting on my essay about Mike Meckler and his unlawful abort at La Guardia airport, mike said…

Oh, then he was wrongly arrested for being a gun owner. Simply like so often happens to you poor persecuted and misunderstood guys.

Well I'thousand glad mike is finally starting to see that gun owners are indeed often misunderstood. In back up of this thesis, all one actually needs to practice is listen to some comments from the antis:

Daily KOS – Gun owners accept low cocky-esteem:

People ain guns because they desperately want to experience of import and powerful. There's always the joke that gun owners are compensating for a small penis and there'south a bit of truth to that. They are compensating for something; they're compensating for a low self-esteem.

Equally I arroyo 50, I have to say that my cocky-esteem issues are pretty well behind me. I have the respect of my family unit and friends and the dearest and respect of my wife. I can expect back and see my small-scale contribution to the cause of ceremonious (gun) rights. When I am carrying I do not "feel important and powerful" I by and large feel relaxed and calm.

The KOS commodity is right in 1 respect: I am compensating for something. I am compensating for existence almost 50, having a bad back and a bum shoulder (courtesy of my Naval service) and having had open up eye surgery (and ongoing heart problems) which make me very vulnerable to concrete set on. I'm also compensating for my wife who is 5'2″ with a bad dorsum and almost blind in one heart. As for my penis, it works for me and whether or not it works for my wife (which really is none of your business) I still have ten fingers, a rima oris, a tongue and some toys.

Crooks & Liars – Gun owners are paranoid:

Before Election Mean solar day, the NRA was doing what it always does: Raising the specter of the liberal bogeyman — y'all know, the Incipient Dictator Who Wants To Take Your Guns Abroad — in the person of Barack Obama. See, for instance, this ad. [Which yous tin't actually see because it is a bad link]

Then information technology shouldn't really be a big surprise that, after the ballot, i of the only segments of the retail economy that did well was in guns.

I actually addressed the "Why Are Y'all Gun Nuts And so Paranoid Nearly Obama" accusation in this slice at TTAG, but I will reiterate briefly.

Obama had a long history of contempt to gun owners' rights in the Illinois legislature and connected that antipathy upon his top to the U.S. Senate. Once he became President at that place were further indications; the DoD'south change in once-fired brass policy, the reversal of a conclusion to import 800k historically of import weapons from South korea, the push to ratify C.I.F.T.A., the CDC ignoring restrictions on anti-gun inquiry under the guise of "health problems", Fast & Furious and the xc% lie . . . etc., etc..

Michael Moore – Gun owners are racist (video segment)

Mr. Moore claims that gun owners are racist because when we see ourselves defending against a habitation invasion, we don't see "freckle-faced Jimmy from down the street," which is true. I don't expect my neighbor from down the street to be a dwelling invader. When I picture domicile invaders I see Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes of the Connecticut dwelling invasion/rapes/arson/murders.

As for fearing/hating people of colour, I could quote Gunny Hartman from Full Metallic Jacket about antisocial everyone. Merely while amusing, that is only not truthful. As a libertarian, I try very hard to see people not ethnicity or skin colour and to guess individuals based on their deportment not the deportment of others who may wait like them.

The Propaganda Professor – Gun owners are racist and unrealistic about self-defense.

At present this one may really require an in-depth dissection:

They seem to be arriving in the Inbox more often these days, those reports of incidents in which a law-abiding denizen thwarts the intents of evildoers thanks to being armed. Passed on by one of the gun addicts we all know in an effort to rationalize their habit, these anecdotes are often accompanied by dubious statistics nigh how often this sort of matter occurs, and oftentimes by comments that defy all reason for anyone except a gun aficionado.

"n the first place, most of these incidents are bogus …

The Prof and then goes on to give one example of a bogus self-defense force story. Well I'll see his artificial story and heighten him 75 real ones from just the last iv months:

• Robbery: 2 charged with manslaughter after victim shoots their accomplices, police say (AK)
• Woman attacked by multiple dogs saved by Good Samaritans (AZ)
• Merrimack woman with gun thwarts habitation invasion (NH)
• Home invasion leads to melee, decease (OR)
• Human being shot after he follows another human being dwelling (TX)
• Homeowner Holds Doubtable at Gunpoint (NC)
• Washington homeowner shoots intruder (WA)
• Homeowner Shoots Would-Exist Robber (TN)
• Video: Storeowner shoots would-be robber (CT)
• Bad Law Enforcement Advice of the Day: Colorado Springs Edition (CO)
• Police: Phoenix mom kills backyard intruder (AZ)
• Retired Officer Fires Fatal Shot During Burglary (MI)
• MPD Says Infiltrator Shot and Wounded Friday (MS)
• Deputies: Suspect shot dead in home invasion (CA)
• After Bawl Alerts Wife, Husband Kills Thanksgiving Intruder (PA)
• Second Man Arrested In Deadly Home Invasion (CO)
• Local resident captures midnight burglar (OK)
• Law: Stabbing at Saginaw Township apartment in self defense; man charged with torture of girlfriend (MI)
• Homeowner steps up: shoots suspected infiltrator in the dorsum (TX)
• Homeowner wounds declared infiltrator; Deputies: No charges expected in the shooting (LA)
• Police say x-yr-old male child fought off mother's attacker with BB gun (WA)
• Virginia Artery Shooting (NY)
• Store clerk shoots, kills robbery doubtable (OH)
• Homeowner foils NW Harris County burglary (TX)
• Police identify man shot during attempted robbery (IN)
• Self-defense: Teen hunter kills mount lion (NE)
• Victim Wounds Suspected Robber (TN)
• The 2nd Subpoena in action (GA)
• Retired SBPD officeholder shoots suspect during attempted armed robbery (IN)
• Pub Employee Wounds Would-exist Robber (OR)
• Mom with Ohio curtained handgun license fires gun to ward off sex offender's tearing attack (OH)
• Burglar avoids beingness shot while robbing SI mansion formerly owned past mobster (NY)
• Law: Man shot dead in Antioch threatened homeowner with knife (CA)
• Memphis pizza delivery guy shoots would-be robber (TN)
• 2 arrested for armed robbery at Max Muscle store (CA)
• Oakland Not-Occupant: I Rack, They Ran (CA)
• Shots Ring Out After Human Finds Intruder In Dwelling house (WV)
• Armed human being tells Minneapolis police: I shot robber (MN)
• Redding Woman Kills Intruder (CA)
• Alleged infiltrator shot past Boone Co. resident charged (AR)
• Columbia County infiltrator flees in the face of gunfire (FL)
• Suspected burglar shot, killed in Pour Valley (WA)
• Clerk in Fla. kills would be robber, saves baby (FL)
• Homeowner shoots, kills teen suspect in home invasion (TX)
• Burglary suspect picks the wrong home for suspension-in try (OR)
• Homo Killed With Arrow In Stonycreek Township (PA)
• Ex-Swain Shot During Declared Home Invasion (WV)
• Cincy store clerk distracts armed robber long plenty to pull ain gun and shoot (OH)
• Shooter may accept been acting in self-defence (AL)
• Man killed in Bay Point dwelling threatened family with a screwdriver, authorities say (CA)
• Harrisonburg Police Make Arrest in Weekend Shooting Incident (VA)
• Elderly ND man hold intruder at bay with handgun (ND)
• Retired Police Officer Shoots and Kills Suspect in Attempted Robbery (NY)
• Woman says she'southward alive because she bought a gun rather than counting on a protection order to stop her violent ex (OH)
• Another infiltrator shot inside a home (MO)
• Adult female says she killed estranged boyfriend in self-defense (OH)
• Early Morning Shooting Leaves I Dead (OH)
• Constabulary: Man Tries to Rob Bar, Then Gets Stabbed (TX)
• Dayton store clerk pulls concealed handgun on armed robber (video story)(OH)
• S.F. adult female stabs home intruder to expiry (CA)
• Intruders shoot human; girlfriend fires back (OR)
• Employee with knife runs off would-be robber (OR)
• Grizzly bear kills hunter near Purlieus Canton (ID)
• Homeowner: Shooting was self-defense subsequently finding girlfriend with other human being (TN)
• Irresponsible Gun Possessor of the Day: Monica Rodriguez (TX)
• Homeowner shoots burglar (MO)
• Rogers Canton Homeowner Fed Upward, Shoots Repeat Intruder In Leg (OK)
• Cleveland: Homeowner shoots, kills suspected burglar (OH)
• Man allegedly shoots would-be infiltrator (CA)
• Turnabout is fair (gun)play (PA)
• Woman Says Deadly Shooting Was Cocky-Defense (CA)
• Man pulls xc-yr-old woman from alligator's jaws (FL)
• Women took activity against would-be assailants in separate incidents (MI)
• seventy-year-old Detroit woman shoots at intruders (MI)
• Human who shot ex-wife slain by stepson in self-defense (FL)

The Prof likewise mentions "dubious statistics" without really citing whatsoever, so I'm left to guess which defensive gun employ statistics he finds dubious. My judge is (drum roll delight) the classic 2.5 million DGUs a year. Now the Prof may find this number "dubious", only it is based on a written report past Dr. Gary Kleck (a source that even the Brady Campaign admits is authoritative) and Marc Gertz which is cited in "A Telephone call For A Truce In The DGU War" found in the fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

If yous are unwilling to have this number, let's await at the same article where enquiry by Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig (hardly raving gun nuts) shows one.46 million DGUs per yr. The Prof may be "dubious" about these numbers because of the National Crime Victimization Surveys results which typically show less than 100,000 DGUs per twelvemonth, just the to a higher place linked article addresses the methodological flaws in the NCVS calculations (briefly, there are no directly questions about DGUs, merely indirect ones).

Let's await a little more than closely at those DGUs. According to Gun Facts, ver. vi.0, 15.half-dozen% of people who used guns defensively stated that they "almost certainly" would accept been killed had they non used their weapon. Now this may seem loftier, just remember that about states crave that you be in reasonable fear of death or smashing bodily impairment, without the ability to safely retreat, before you tin lawfully use mortiferous force in self-defense.

For the sake of argument, though, let'southward say that 9 out of 10 of these people are mistaken, and so only 1.56% of DGUs actually relieve someone'southward life. Now let's utilise that to the annual number of DGUs. Even if we go with the lower number of 1.46 million, that still gives us more than 22,000 lives saved each year.

At present let's look at the number of firearm homicides each yr. According to the CDC's WISQARS fatal injury reports, betwixt 1999 and 2007 we averaged 11,792 homicides committed with firearms annually. In other words, going with the more pessimistic number of DGUs and discounting 9 out of x reports that a DGU saved a life nosotros even so find that guns "relieve" about twice as many lives as they" take" each year.

Now allow's accept a look at some of the Prof's specific points which he makes in response to "gun addicts'" e-mails regarding DGUs:

"2. 'This [a criminal assault in Philadelphia] proves that gun control doesn't work.'"

How and then? Firearm regulation, more pejoratively known as 'gun control', is not a unmarried mensurate but a wide variety of measures, some more than effective than others. The fact that one teenage hoodlum was able to go his easily on a weapon inappreciably proves that nobody else has e'er been prevented from doing so.

Except that the antis claim that their anti-gun laws will preclude dangerous weapons from getting in the hands of dangerous people. So when the laws don't piece of work they say we demand to brand them stricter or close some loophole or another. As for trying to evidence the negative that criminals have been prevented from getting a gun considering of "firearm regulation", let's inquire the FBI. According to CalGunLaws.com:

Ed Davis, an FBI Criminal Investigative Teacher, … told the International Clan of Chiefs of Police that none of these criminals who attacked constabulary officers was'hindered by whatever law – federal, state or local – that has ever been established to prevent gun buying. They simply laughed at gun laws.'

As for the Prof'south statement that some gun-command measures are more than constructive than others, allow's look at the CDC'southward 10/2003 written report "Get-go Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws", which constitute:

In summary, the Task Strength found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.

Parenthetically, I must acknowledge that I practice accept one serious quibble with one of the CDC report's intermediate conclusions. They dismissed the Lott-Mustard study and follow-ups on the efficacy of 'shall-upshot' laws reducing law-breaking and because the results were "conceptually implausible" which, equally far as I tin tell, ways the Job Strength didn't carp to look at the data or methodologies because they could not wrap their brains effectually the study'due south determination that "more guns = less law-breaking".

Regardless, we have two regime agencies (one with a history of anti-gun "research") stating that "firearm regulation" doesn't work. You read that correctly. Finally, if you want an even more authoritative source let's go to mafia underboss Sammy "the Balderdash" Gravano. In a ix/1999 interview with Vanity Fair magazine Mr. Gravano stated:

Gun control? It's the all-time thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have zero. If I'm a bad guy, I'g ever gonna accept a gun. Safety locks? Y'all pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. Nosotros'll see who wins.

On to the Professor's adjacent point:

"three. 'This [criminal assault in Philadelphia] proves that it'southward stupid to outlaw guns.'"

Information technology may brand a potent example that information technology's unwise to do then in some communities, but every community is different. However, the annotate is more often than not irrelevant. Information technology's not very mutual for a community to ban guns altogether (and it wasn't common even before the 'bourgeois' Supreme Court rewrote the Second Amendment). That's not what 'gun control' is all nigh: it's about keeping guns away from people like the teen hoodlums rather than people like the Temple student. Many advocates of 'gun control' are themselves gun owners.

Now normally I wouldn't bother addressing such an obvious straw-human, only at that place are a couple of things in the Prof's reply that merit refutation. He says that "the 'bourgeois' Supreme Court rewrote the 2nd Amendment" which is imitation on its face. Perhaps he meant they interpreted it in a style he didn't similar. Like then many of his arguments, though, this one does not stand up to even brief examination.

If you don't carp to really read the Courtroom's decision in Commune of Columbia v. Heller it's easy to believe the media myth that the Court ruled 5 – 4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. If, however, y'all do read the decision (specifically Justice Stevens' dissent, with which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all concurred) you will discover that the "ruling" was 9 – 0 in favor of the individual rights argument. The opening paragraph of the dissent states information technology quite conspicuously:

The question presented by this case is not whether the 2nd Amendment protects a 'collective correct' or an 'individual right.' Surely it protects a right that tin be enforced by individuals. Simply a conclusion that the Second Subpoena protects an individual right does not tell the states anything about the scope of that correct.

Briefly, they held that while the Second Amendment protects (not grants, protects ) an individual correct, the District's complete ban on handguns and operable long guns did not borrow on that right. Now tell me who was trying to rewrite the Amendment.

Equally for the Prof's statement that "[m]any advocates of 'gun control' are themselves gun owners" this is truthful. But most of that grouping isn't actually paying attention to the consequence. I don't blame them for that…dealing with our civil rights takes a lot of time, even if you limit your focus to specific areas like illegal searches or gun rights. The fact is, still, that they have no idea what the policies they are supporting really entail.

One gun control policy that has recently been in the news is the supposed gun-show loophole. Illegal Mayors Confronting Guns crows that 85% of gun owners favor closing the "loophole". Or perchance it'south 77% or 81% or 83%. Let's agree that three-quarters of gun owners favor "endmost the loophole."

But how many of those gun owners are aware that (depending on which proposed beak yous read) "closing the loophole" ways they could become to prison for five years for letting a buddy shoot their gun at the range? Or that "closing the loophole" means gun show organizers and promoters could go to prison for two years if a single person at one of their shows hands a weapon to someone to look at?

There's another gene at work hither and that is most gun owners don't believe stricter gun laws will affect them. For years the antis have been pushing the meme that their proposals "won't affect law-abiding gun owners" and that merely criminals need to worry virtually this or that new proposal. Unfortunately when the formerly "police force-abiding" gun owner is bitten on his unsuspecting ass by an obscure regulation he didn't even know existed information technology's too belatedly to change his heed about supporting these "common-sense, reasonable" mala prohibita laws.

Indeed there was a woman in Chicago a few years back (can't find the link, deplorable) who was some sort of wheel in the country One thousand thousand Murdering Mothers or Brady Campaign to End Gun Buying. Cops searched her house looking for a cousin (or maybe nephew) and found a "sawed-off" shotgun with an obliterated series number. She was and so arrested and charged with several felonies which left her admittedly gobsmacked.

In an interview after she got out on bail, she can exist heard plaintively crying "Just I didn't exercise anything!" I guess she never realized the possible effects of the laws she'd been pushing, nor the fact that about of these laws are mala prohibita edicts and don't require whatsoever sort of actus reus or fifty-fifty mens rea.

" 4. 'This proves that more people should accept guns.'"

Seriously? You honestly believe that the Philadelphia episode would have turned out better if all three of the teens had opened fire instead of but ane?

The Prof'south dismissal is substantially another straw-man. We've already established that criminals can get guns without any issues, so the fact that only one was armed in the Philly incident just shows that they didn't think they were going to need more guns, otherwise they would have had them. And yeah, I will concede that if more than law-abiding people had guns, criminals might arm themselves more heavily. But I recall it far more than probable that the smart ones would quit being criminals and the impaired ones would exist dead.

" five. 'Okay, but it proves that at least more constabulary-constant denizen should own guns.' "

Ah, the classic John Wayne wet dream. Bad guy pulls his gun, good guy pulls his gun, and bang! good guy gets the driblet on him, and rides off into the sunset.  The real world, however, isn't about and so pat.

The day after the shootout in Philly, a man rushed into a Nevada restaurant blazing away with an AK47, killing three people before turning the gun on himself. 2 of the dead were National Guard members – meaning that they themselves were trained in the use of weapons. They probably weren't armed at the fourth dimension, but suppose they had been. Do you really believe that they would have taken notation of what was happening, and looked up from their waffles and chat in time to prevent the shooter from doing his damage? Possibly, but non bloody likely.

Still, let's indulge the fantasy. Imagine that the gun addict'south vision of Utopia had come to pass, and Anybody in the IHOP was packing heat. Imagine 50 diners slapping leather and opening fire from 50 directions. Imagine a dozen or two dozen bodies on the floor instead of iv. Do you truly consider that a preferred alternative?

John Wayne wet dream? Seriously? The Prof believes nosotros think this way? The sad thing is that he probably does. And I say that because it's non the first time I've meet this mindset from an anti.

The Prof too appears to exist ignorant of the fact that in more than 80% of successful DGUs, the criminal threatened or used force offset, so yes, gun owners patently can and do "get the drop" on bad guys. But in more 90% of DGUs there is no shooting of the bad guy involved. According to Dr. Kleck's Targeting Guns, in less than eight% of DGUs is the assailant wounded and in less than 0.one% is the assaulter killed (by the way, many of these facts and figures come by way of Gun Facts version 6.0).

In add-on, very rarely does someone take another'due south life and just "ride off into the dusk." The emotional and legal problems that follow fifty-fifty the most well-justified of self-defense force killings are well documented.

Side by side, the Professor invokes the Nevada IHOP shooting, asking:

Do you lot actually believe that [the customers] would have taken note of what was happening, and looked upwards from their waffles and chat in fourth dimension to preclude the shooter from doing his harm? Perhaps, but not bloody likely.

It might surprise people to find out that I agree completely here. In this instance, the shooter came in already firing and shot for eight seconds earlier killing himself. Unless someone saw the shooter coming up to the front door, information technology is indeed not bloody likely that anyone could have reacted in time to stop the shooter.

But what well-nigh, say, the VA Tech massacre which took nigh 10 minutes to unfold? If we "indulge the fantasy" of everyone beingness armed, how many lives could have been spared? Fifty-fifty if no ane in Room 206 got the shooter[1], if everyone in Room 207 (according to this written report, the 2nd room the shooter entered) had been carrying weapons, surely the shooter would take been dropped the 2d he came in the door.

Or how well-nigh the massacre at Columbine? You can watch the security videos of the killers just strolling around taking pot-shots at people hiding nether whatever inadequate cover was available. How many lives could have been saved if instructor Patti Nielson had been armed, so when she commencement saw the shooters outside she could have shot them? Or when the shooters walked past the desk-bound she was hiding under in the library to burn down out the windows she could have shot them in the back?

How about the Pearl, MS high school shooting? How many lives could accept been saved if Joel Myrick hadn't had to run 3-quarters of a mile to his car to get his gun? How many lives were saved when he stopped the shooter from driving to the Junior High for some other shooting spree?

How nearly the Appalachia Law School shootings? How many lives could have been saved if Officer Gross and Deputy Bridges hadn't had to run to their cars to get their weapons? How many lives were saved past their capture of the shooter?

An even improve question would be, how many lives could exist spared if spree shooters knew that most anyone anywhere could be conveying a weapon? Surprisingly enough, that is a question we can answer. As Dr. John Lott points out hither, with the exception of the Tucson shooting in January of 2011, "all the public shootings in which more than than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns." All simply one.

This is non a phenomenon limited to the United States, as Dr. Lott points out hither, mass prey shootings take occurred in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Commonwealth of australia, all in locations where guns were "banned".

And so, to accost the Prof'southward final judgement of Betoken five, yes I would prefer the culling of "a dozen or two bodies on the flooring"[2] at an IHOP to the scores of people who die in "gun complimentary zones" every year.

The Professor sums up:

There is no quick and piece of cake solution to the trouble of gun violence, particularly after so many years of Americans falsely believing they have a ramble right to be armed. Even gun addicts themselves have been known to point this out – you may take seen, for example, bumper stickers that say 'Gun Command – A Simple Solution for Simple Minds'. Simply there is naught uncomplicated or simpleminded about 'gun control', which does non profess to exist a magic bullet, as it were. What IS simpleminded and naive is the assumption that the problem will just take care of itself if we do zero.

Well the Prof is starting off with a bad assumption so no wonder information technology leads him off-target. There is no such thing every bit "gun violence." There are people who do trigger-happy things with guns, but they also do violent things with knives, rocks, pointy sticks and fists.

Antis (not the Prof, I'thou speaking more than generally here) often bring up the firearm murder rates in other countries, pointing out how depression they are compared to ours. What you lot won't hear from them, however, is a comparing of non-firearm homicide rates or a comparison of overall violent criminal offence rates. This is because betwixt 1999 and 2007 (I wish the CDC would update their bloody tables, they've been stuck at 2007 for, like, three years now) the U.S. had a firearm homicide rate of four.02 per 100,000 and a non-firearm homicide charge per unit of 2.12.

In 1999/2000, the U.K had a firearm homicide rate of 0.12 and a non-firearm homicide rate of 1.33. So if evil guns cause all these homicides why is our non-firearm homicide rate so much college than in the U.K.? Furthermore, if all our guns cause all this violent crime, why is it that, according to the Daily Mail, our overall fierce law-breaking charge per unit is less than one-half of Canada's and less than a quarter of the U.K.'south rate?

In fact, the overall tearing criminal offense rate in the U.S. is less than the U.One thousand., Austria, South Africa, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and France. Are they serious? Luxemburg and Belgium have more violent crime than the U.South.? Possibly there are more complicated socio-economic factors at work than the simplistic guns = bad; no guns = good!

Yet with me? Good. Stay tuned because tomorrow I'll present my "quick and easy" solutions to the gun violence problem. Won't even charge the Bradys or MAIG for my time. Promise.

[i] I decline to employ the proper noun of whatsoever mass shooter if at all possible. They desire notoriety? I say let them rot in obscurity.

[2] Not that I actually consider that a realistic possibility, I'chiliad just going forth for arguments' sake.

hunterpubjessity.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/pardon-the-interruption-while-we-feed-the-troll-part-1/