Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-gun Mentality

[NotATool]

The people who seriously beleive what she said applies to any of us are in for a rough surprise if they ever come to argue with those points in mind.

It's enough that one person claims she can read the minds of millions, it's another thing that people actually beleive her.

 

[SIGbastard]

The people who seriously beleive what she said applies to any of us are in for a rough surprise if they ever come to argue with those points in mind.

It's enough that one person claims she can read the minds of millions, it's another thing that people actually beleive her.

I believe alot of what she had to say was fairly accurate. I don't think that the article is perfect that applies to anyone and everyone but you would be hard pressed to find that for any side. What is funny to me is those of you with irrational views are of course going to call this artical a work of ignorance. It's hard to get over your emotions, I understand.

 

[Glirk Dient]

The people who seriously beleive what she said applies to any of us are in for a rough surprise if they ever come to argue with those points in mind.

It's enough that one person claims she can read the minds of millions, it's another thing that people actually beleive her.

Read the article and refute every point. Until you do that you can't claim the whole thing is completely wrong. You havent proven anything wrong you have just whined and say its wrong because you say so. That argument doesn't hold up very well.

 

[NotATool]

What is funny to me is those of you with irrational views are of course going to call this artical a work of ignorance. It's hard to get over your emotions, I understand.

This is the problem: you are arguing from the stance of the article that the anti-gun population are irrational, emotionally governated beings. Unfortunely, you are making yourself look like a fool by making use of a 2000 year old fallacy: the Ad Hominem.

Don't try to take cheap shots like that anymore, it makes you seem imprudent then you lose credibiltity.

Read the article and refute every point. Until you do that you can't claim the whole thing is completely wrong. You havent proven anything wrong you have just whined and say its wrong because you say so. That argument doesn't hold up very well.

I have already done so by pointing out every fallacy she has made. You may have missed my post.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The article is already disproven in that it presents arguments based in presuppositions instead of fact or evidence.

The burden of proof rests on you, and this article simply doesn't cut the mustard.

She's throwing out claims without any explication.
For several paragraphs she basically says "most black people see themselves as victims and become professional victims because without the pity they would die."
Where the hell is that from?

 

[Laivasse]

It stupefies me that some people would see this as a serious, respectable article. And then go on to talk about other people being irrational.

Regardless of your stance on the gun issue, the article is a pile of piss. It offends my sensibilities not because it is by a pro-gunner (I'm not all that passionate about the issue), but because it's just so stupid. I really did think it was an extremely subtle parody for a few seconds.

See Mecha's previous summary and NotaTool's post re: Fallacies to understand why it is a heap of crap, if for some reason you're still thinking "wow, hmm, how insightful" it is. Those posts constitute a guide on how to deal with laughably spurious articles written by people who like to use a cheap qualification to fan their stupidity around and make it waft onto others like a stale fart.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What is funny to me is those of you with irrational views are of course going to call this artical a work of ignorance. It's hard to get over your emotions, I understand.

Three people who've said it's a load of shit:
- Mecha is sort of centrist on the issue as far as I know.
- Laivasse doesn't give a shit.
- I can't help thinking it can't be a good idea to let people walk around in public with guns, but until I actually look at the issue and decide for myself I don't have an opinion.
Such irrational views.

It's hard to get over your emotions, I understand.

Ah, so I see you're following the article's advice and being a patronising, generalising obnoxious sod. Thanks for that.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Your more likely to shoot a familly member than a burgular.

Jesus, I hope im not going blind.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well it does make some sense.

Most people have family in their house 24/7/365, while burglars are in there maybe two hours tops if you're lucky.

If there's a gun in the house, the potential burglars have only that small window to be shot in, while the family is at continuous risk.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

For burglary or execution? I'm not going to keep any weapons in my house, instead, they'll all be with me, concealed, wherever I go.

Listen to this logic and see if you agree with me:

Keeping guns in your home is stupid, especially if those guns have the correct ammunition nearby. If a burgular, or a rapist for that matter, breaks into your home while your away at work, a friends house etc. you've practically given him a personal defense weapon against you, and the cops when they arrive.

Not good logic. I don't want to arm my Burgulars anymore then they already are.

 

[SIGbastard]

For burglary or execution? I'm not going to keep any weapons in my house, instead, they'll all be with me, concealed, wherever I go.

Listen to this logic and see if you agree with me:

Keeping guns in your home is stupid, especially if those guns have the correct ammunition nearby. If a burgular, or a rapist for that matter, breaks into your home while your away at work, a friends house etc. you've practically given him a personal defense weapon against you, and the cops when they arrive.

Not good logic. I don't want to arm my Burgulars anymore then they already are.

I have a 700lb gun vault bolted to my concrete foundation from the inside of the vault. I'm not saying that a burglar couldn't get past the safe but it will deter most as it would take to much time, possibly make lots of noise, etc, etc.

Now for the people who can't afford a nice gun safe. It is ridiculous to expect someone opt not to own a gun because of the actions of criminals. In the same note nobody should have prescription drugs, knives, bats, etc because a criminal could come across it and misuse it.

There is cold hard evidence that states that allow concealed carry have almost immediate reductions in violent and non-viloent crime, and states with stricter gun control usually have higher levels of violent crime. The only thing anti-gun laws will ever accomplish is taking away any deterrent from committing various crimes.

The whole a gun in the home makes it like 7X more likely for a family member to be murdered also comes from seriously flawed statistics. In the study I read it included guns that a criminal intruder brought into the home even if there were none already there :rolling:.

Here are 2 studies to support my claims: http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/jan98b.html
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt050301a.html

I'll try to find the skewed statistic everyone always spouts as well.

 

[Yuri]

What is funny to me is those of you with irrational views are of course going to call this artical a work of ignorance. It's hard to get over your emotions, I understand.

Funneh, cuz I'm not neccesarily batshit anti-gun, and I seem to think this article is biased, arrogant, and shit.

 

[Shasta]

I don't see the need for some dumb ass to try and delve into the phsycology of why people are anti guns. Even more disturbing is that they also seem to think that these people believe something that is an abnormal and bad thing.

How hard is it to see that there are a lot of morons out there?

You see them every day, on the roads- they pull out in front of you, run red lights and cause a huge accident etc. They rob Kwiki-Marts with butter knives, only to get $50 and go to jail for it. They sue McDonalds because they are fat. They sue apple because they turned up their ipod too loud and damaged their hearing.

Why would anyone with half a brain want these people to have even the option of getting a gun?

 

[SIGbastard]

I don't see the need for some dumb ass to try and delve into the phsycology of why people are anti guns. Even more disturbing is that they also seem to think that these people believe something that is an abnormal and bad thing.

How hard is it to see that there are a lot of morons out there?

You see them every day, on the roads- they pull out in front of you, run red lights and cause a huge accident etc. They rob Kwiki-Marts with butter knives, only to get $50 and go to jail for it. They sue McDonalds because they are fat. They sue apple because they turned up their ipod too loud and damaged their hearing.

Why would anyone with half a brain want these people to have even the option of getting a gun?

The problem is these people WILL get a gun regardless of the laws, but a law abiding citizens will be left defenseless after certain laws are passed. You see if the "dumb" people had any regard for the law they wouldn't rob the kwik mart with a butter knife in the first place.

 

[CptStern]

yes because law abiding gun toting citizens absolutely never commit crimes

http://www.momsteam.com/alpha/news/enraged_father_shoots_sons_football_coach.shtml

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/AP_10_year_old_shoots_father_28AUG04.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11006938/from/RS.1/

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait, but that means the article is wrong!

H-How??

 

[jondy]

The problem is these people WILL get a gun regardless of the laws, but a law abiding citizens will be left defenseless after certain laws are passed. You see if the "dumb" people had any regard for the law they wouldn't rob the kwik mart with a butter knife in the first place.

My god, you're right. Everybody stock up on firearms!

 

[SIGbastard]

yes because law abiding gun toting citizens absolutely never commit crimes

http://www.momsteam.com/alpha/news/enraged_father_shoots_sons_football_coach.shtml

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/AP_10_year_old_shoots_father_28AUG04.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11006938/from/RS.1/

Did you read the articles at all? Of course there are going to be crimes committed but finding 3 examples proves nothing. Concealed carry license holders are actually much less likely to be arrested for violent crimes than non-ccw holders.

Here are some key quotes straight from the articles/studies:

"And concealed carry permittees have proven themselves quite law abiding compared to the general population.

For instance, between 1987 and 1995, Florida had issued nearly 300,000 permits, but only 19 were revoked because the permit holder had committed a crime. That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders during a nine-year period - ten thousand times lower than the criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans each year.

And in Texas, where more than 215,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued, licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 14 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public".

"Firearms are used by law-abiding citizens about five times more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Thus, it should not be surprising that the evidence shows that when a state allows its citizens to exercise their right to carry a concealed firearm, crime rates decline."

"The favorable results of concealed-carry laws have been documented by many experts, including Yale University's Dr. John Lott.

Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties Lott found that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

Nor has allowing more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms resulted in increased accidental shootings or "heat-of-the-moment" killings.

Indeed, while firearm ownership in the U.S. is at an all time high, the firearm accident rate is lower than it has ever been since 1903 when the government first began compiling such data. And FBI data shows that killings as a result of arguments are declining as a share of all homicides".

 

[CptStern]

I really dont need regurgitated stats ..my point still stands. You said:

"You see if the "dumb" people had any regard for the law they wouldn't rob the kwik mart with a butter knife in the first place"

I said that law abiding citizens are capable of committing crimes which I've proved.

 

[SIGbastard]

I really dont need regurgitated stats ..my point still stands. You said:

"You see if the "dumb" people had any regard for the law they wouldn't rob the kwik mart with a butter knife in the first place"

I said that law abiding citizens are capable of committing crimes which I've proved.

I never said they weren't but that rarity is far outweighed by benefits. The stats give a pretty strong case. I guess I shouldn't be surpised you just want to ignore them and move on.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well for starters, I'm not really convinced that people carrying secret handguns reduce rape and murder by 5-8%.

Is that implying that 5% of murders in those counties were prevented by some the victim pulling out a gun and saying "yo, don't murder me or I will murder you"? (a.k.a. actually using them for self-defense)

No, I'd attribute it more to fear on the part of the criminals that the victim might have a gun.

There are other ways to generate fear, without using secret handguns.

And I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-concealed gun.

 

[SIGbastard]

Is that implying that 5% of murders in those counties were prevented by some the victim pulling out a gun and saying "yo, don't murder me or I will murder you"? (a.k.a. actually using them for self-defense)

No, I'd attribute it more to fear on the part of the criminals that the victim might have a gun.

.

DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! What part of the fear of the criminal is a bad thing? I guess we shouldn't want to put those unfortunate criminals through to much stress:rolling: .

It's implying that's how much murder/rape has dropped since concealed carry was permitted.

 

[Yuri]

DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! What part of the fear of the criminal is a bad thing? I guess we shouldn't want to put those unfortunate criminals through to much stress:rolling: .

I think a "bad thing" is that not only criminals will be going through that crazy stress! DING DING!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You missed my point.

There are other ways to generate fear, without using secret handguns.

Such as increased police funding, or higher jailtimes, etc.

The point is therefore that the rates would drop by the same amount if some other threat were introduced.

Handguns seem like too much of a quick fix to me.
With them, everyone's afraid to an extent, rather than just the criminals.

DING!

 

[CptStern]

I never said they weren't but that rarity is far outweighed by benefits. The stats give a pretty strong case. I guess I shouldn't be surpised you just want to ignore them and move on.

ya that must be it :upstare: you're not surprised because why? perhaps you'd like to explain

those stats are cherry picked to support gun ownership ..big ****ing surprise there


but the facts dont support your assertion that guns give a measure of safety ..according to the FBI in 2002 only 1,963 out of 14,054 murders were committed by strangers ..in 2003 it was 1,795 out of 14,408 murders ...so logically one could come to the conclusion that you are in more danger of being killed by someone you know rather than a stranger. But that's always conviently ignored by gun supporters who overemphasize that homicidal maniacs lurk behind every bush, dark alleyway etc

 

[SIGbastard]

You missed my point.



Such as increased police funding, or higher jailtimes, etc.

The point is therefore that the rates would drop by the same amount if some other threat were introduced.

Handguns seem like too much of a quick fix to me.
With them, everyone's afraid to an extent, rather than just the criminals.

DING!

Actually the general public is quite ignorant about how so many people legally carry guns. You see in most states like mine it is considering brandishing a firearm if the weapon is not concealed or "prints" (the outline is clearly seen under clothing). Your not even supposed to touch it in public unless your life is in danger.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I know how concealed carry laws work, Sig. My point still stands.

That's also a reasonable argument, Stern. Although it is nice that legit gun owners are fairly reasonable so far, more guns just mean that more will be availiable and more will be used.