Monday, April 30, 2018

How the NRA became radically opposed to all gun control

It didn't used to be that way, before the late 1970s when Hanlon Carter took over the organization.

104 comments:

Starhopper said...

About 20-25 years ago, I worked with a guy who was an extreme gun enthusiast. He insisted that the 2nd Amendment was absolute in its wording that there be no limitation whatsoever on a person owning whatever weapon he wanted. I even tried using reductio ad absurdum on him, to no avail. I asked, "What if someone wanted to own a nuclear device capable of blowing up a city?" His answer? The Constitution says he ought to be allowed to!

Some people are so far off into crazyland (there are examples of such on this very website) that all discussion with them is an exercise in futility.

Legion of Logic said...

Out of curiosity, does Planned Parenthood support any restrictions at all on abortion? Or is pushing for as much as possible sort of what these groups do?

Joe Hinman said...

I have discovered research correlating gun nutism with racism. In the 60's conservatives were for gun control because they feared the black panthers havig guns, now they fear blacks having more guns.

Legion of Logic said...

I've also found research, and personally observed, that the left thinks everything conservatives believe is due to some form of bigotry, so indirectly this is evidence that the left has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what conservatives believe or why. It's really sad.

Starhopper said...

"Is pushing for as much as possible sort of what these groups do?"

That's what such groups often do, but not always. For instance, I can't think of a single environmental group that is opposed to all development, rather than just harmful development.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Thank God for the NRA!

After looking at all the countries that have succumbed to Communism, and the brutallity that ensued, and the march of the Left in this country, we are going to need them guns.

Look at the Soft Coup-de-etat that the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department and the State Department to take away the Presidency from Trump. There was a conspiracy to nullify the election by sordid cooked-up means. America is growing every more into a Marxist state. Karl Marx called for the killing of reactionaries. We'd be slitting our throats if we gave up one inch on guns. The Left scares the beejus out of me.

On YouTube, I watched an SDS newsclip and I believe it was Jerry Rubin or another member that said, "Once we take control of America, we will have to kill 10-15 million Americans" in order to secure their control of America. Hopefully I can find it again. So there are plans in the works to kill reactionaries.

I mean look at what happened when they toppled that Confederate Statue in NC. People spit on it and and kicked it. That is what is going to happen to us. The statue was only a surrogate. Look at the Anti-Fa riots in Berkeley. They prove my point. American society is gone. It is now a very dangerous failed state. There is no rule of law anymore. We need those guns. Thank God for Harlan Carter.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Here at this clip a quote Communists on Campus The speaker is quoting Mark Rudd and Rudd is calling for the armed takeover of America. At the 9:30 min mark.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
I've also found research, and personally observed, that the left thinks everything conservatives believe is due to some form of bigotry, so indirectly this is evidence that the left has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what conservatives believe or why. It's really sad.

ok I worded that badly,Conservative is a larger umbrella term that covers everything right of middle so gun nuts ad racists fall in there somewhere. That doesn't mean I was saying that all conservatives are gun nuts or racists.I worded that badly.

Another reality we need to think about is the gap between ordinary conservatives in "the real world"and republicans in congress,because America as a whole are always much more willing to accept forms of gun control than are congressmen.



Society for Personality and Social Psychology, "U.S. Handgun Ownership Motivated by Two Main Factors," (June 8, 2017)

http://www.spsp.org/news-center/press-releases/handgun-ownership-motivation

(accessed 2/27/18)

The motivation to own a handgun for self-protection is not just about fear of crime, according to the model proposed by Wolfgang Stroebe and Pontus Leander (University of Groningen, The Netherlands), and Arie W. Kruglanski (University of Maryland), it is also about a more general sense of threat emanating from “the belief that the world is an unpredictable and dangerous place and that society is at the brink of collapse.” These dual layers of threat also predict beliefs that people have the right to shoot and kill in self-defense and that people should have broad 2nd Amendment rights. [Read More]

From a fairly unbiased source we can see racism is mixed up in the issue of gun ownership. A lot of whites want guns because they fear blacks having guns.





Kelly O'Brian, et al. "Racism Gun Ownership and Gun Control, Biased Attitudes in U.S. Whites..."

PLOS one, open access peer reviewed journal NCBI--PMC, US National Library of Medicine /National Institutes of Health


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/
(accessed 2/27/18)



Originally PLoS One. 2013; 8(10): e77552.

Published online 2013 Oct 31. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077552

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/

After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism. The relationship between symbolic racism and opposition to banning handguns in the home (OR1.27 CI 1.03,1.58) was reduced to non-significant after accounting for having a gun in the home (OR1.17 CI.94,1.46), which likely represents self-interest in retaining property (guns).[more]



The Article points out that after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s began advocating that blacks arm themselves and white conservatives began glamouring for stricter gun laws, resulting in The Mulford Act in California (1967). collision : "Symbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites."

Joe Hinman said...

Mark Rud ad weather underground was in the 60s. The hysterical racists still obsessed with communism. Being hyper-vigilant against communism now is as as stupid as worrying about Luddites or the free soil party. It's like expecting in invasion from Mars.

Joe Hinman said...

"I mean look at what happened when they toppled that Confederate Statue in NC. People spit on it and and kicked it. That is what is going to happen to us."

Not that i advocate violence against anyone but it's because you choose to identify yourself with a cause that murdered thousands of people just for the color of thier skin. figure it out dude. We have documented 4000 lynchings between 1890-1920 and that's just small percentage. People don't want to be slaves not even black people. go figure.

you don't have to identify with racism. you don't have to be a racist. You are just over reacting to some trauma in your life



"The statue was only a surrogate. Look at the Anti-Fa riots in Berkeley. They prove my point. American society is gone. It is now a very dangerous failed state. There is no rule of law anymore. We need those guns. Thank God for Harlan Carter."

Hey sorry to break it to you but American society aught against the confederates.I hate to break to it you this way but American society has always assumed the Confederates betrayed America.

you do not speak for America.you don't own America.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
I've also found research, and personally observed, that the left thinks everything conservatives believe is due to some form of bigotry, so indirectly this is evidence that the left has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what conservatives believe or why. It's really sad.

show me the research

One Brow said...

so indirectly this is evidence that the left has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what conservatives believe or why.

Most humans have little idea of what they believe or why. Par for the course.

Joe Hinman said...

how? I hows my studies he doesn't. Explain your reasoning.

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: "A lot of whites want guns because they fear blacks having guns."

That may be true (I'll assume so for now), but how does this equate to racism when black-on-white homicides are way higher than white-on-black homicides?

In other words, it seems VERY reasonable to want a gun to protect yourself from people that historically kill you twice as often as you kill them. You cry racism, but where is it? Is it racist to kill white people at a rate of 2X?

http://www.ibtimes.com/white-black-crime-vs-black-white-crime-new-statistics-show-more-killings-between-2424598

Legion of Logic said...

Joe,

I can't show research for that, since it was a response to what seemed to be an ill-considered broad attack against all conservatives. I retract my response since you clarified.

On the links you provided, while there may be a correlation between someone being a racist and wanting guns for self-defense, I am highly skeptical that the converse is true - someone wanting guns for self-defense is not a useful metric for their thoughts on black people. Particularly in the large swaths of rural America in which there are very few black people statistically, fear of black people would hold almost no motivational weight for anything, yet they are very much in favor of owning guns for self defense.

Back to my commentary on the left for a moment - leftists collectively are far too fond of finding bigotry under every rock. It's to the point if I hear a progressive mention any of the common "isms" or "phobias", I automatically assume they are wrong until proven right. I've been accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and everything else under the sun simply for disagreeing with a progressive policy. While not all leftists do this, it remains true that I have seen only a couple progressives willing to call out their own side for excessive zealotry at blaming bigotry right out of the gate. It's one of the reasons I will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

Starhopper said...

"I will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances."

Well, Legion, that's just because you're a Democratophobe! :)

bmiller said...

Hey Starhopper.

Consistency check here.

Why don't we put all our effort into converting would-be gun murderers' hearts rather than trying to pass laws outlawing guns? If we did that, there would be fewer murders..no?

Trying to pass laws against gun ownership have never worked...for an even longer amount of time than attempts to outlaw abortion.

Remind me. Isn't that the gist of your argument why people shouldn't waste their time trying to pass laws against abortion?

Starhopper said...

bmiller,
I'm too lazy (plus it's after midnight here) to link to my previous statements, but that is exactly the position I have consistently held. Let us raise a generation of Americans who have no desire to own a gun. I have successfully done that with my children, my nieces and nephews (none of whom own a gun), and I will continue the effort with my grandchildren.

My dream - an America where most gun laws are not needed, since no one in their right mind would ever want to be anywhere near one. And I say this as a US Army veteran who qualified expert in the M-16 and grenades, and was trained in the M-50 machine gun and land mines. I also served in the 1070s in the ERF (Emergency Reaction Force) in West Germany, charged with responding to attacks on US forces by the Red Brigades and the Baader Meinhoff Gang. I think I know what I am talking about.

Starhopper said...

That should have read "the 1970s". I may be old, but not that old!

Joe Hinman said...



Karen Armstrong shows Dawkins to have the subtly of a sledge hammer.

Armstrong vs Dawkins

Joe Hinman said...

bmiiler

your argument about gun control was not specific enough to refute but here's a page that refutes several such arguments,"

with studies,







One Brow said...

In other words, it seems VERY reasonable to want a gun to protect yourself from people that historically kill you twice as often as you kill them. You cry racism, but where is it? Is it racist to kill white people at a rate of 2X?

White people are 4 times more likely to be killed by another white person than a black person, even though black people are poorer, and poverty is connected to crime. You need to be watching out for those guys you share a locker room with or go drinking with, not the black guys on the street.

Don't worry, I know mere facts will not change your opinion.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Joe,

I can't show research for that, since it was a response to what seemed to be an ill-considered broad attack against all conservatives. I retract my response since you clarified.


why are you so paranoid? I told you it was not attack on conservatives. For one thing if you look the research I was using they follow that same pattern of speaking about the conservative attitude toward guns then including more sever right wing ideas.Conservatives are to the right of middle but there's a continuum. Not all are in the same place.

Jesus and they call liberals snow flakes,talk about sensitive!

I like yo how many times do I have to say it, you are a swell guy


bmiller said...

@Starhopper.


- The 2nd Amendment needs to be either repealed, or else amended to make it crystal clear that the right to bear arms is restricted to members of a "well regulated militia" and not just anybody.
- Abortion is a great evil, yet I believe that efforts to change the law are futile and counterproductive.


These 2 statements, right next to each other, were the ones I was referring to.
In one case you advocate legislative action and in the other you advocate against it.

It's been my experience when I see things that don't make sense it's a case of people putting politics ahead of everything else.

Joe Hinman said...

StevenK
"That may be true (I'll assume so for now), but how does this equate to racism when black-on-white homicides are way higher than white-on-black homicides?

In other words, it seems VERY reasonable to want a gun to protect yourself from people that historically kill you twice as often as you kill them. You cry racism, but where is it? Is it racist to kill white people at a rate of 2X?"

That has been answered but I want to point out two things: (1)you did not poimt out w/w crime but put in your argumet in terms of b/w. Just curious is that the way you structured your research?

(2)It's NOT reasonable to expect to have to get a gun to protect yourself in a society with sophisticated law enforcement where most people feel they don't need to own a gun. The world I grew up in was like that.The world the right wing of Reagan the moral Moriarty tore that world down and put up the paranoid scared to death world that feels it must be ready for a gun battle all the time.


I am just waiting until we have a full blown gun battle in school auditorium full of kids.

question which is most important to you: having kids or having a gun?

Starhopper said...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider amending (or clarifying) the Constitution to be "legislative action". Apples and oranges.

Legion of Logic said...

"Let us raise a generation of Americans who have no desire to own a gun."

"My dream - an America where most gun laws are not needed, since no one in their right mind would ever want to be anywhere near one."

You are speaking Klingon to rural Southerners who pretty much all own multiple guns and almost never kill each other. I don't know where you live, but our murder rate is almost always zero in my county. We had one murder a month or two ago from a possessive husband, but he stabbed his wife in a Dollar General. Not a gun.

I will not raise my children to be afraid of guns for the same reason I will not declaw a cat and throw it outside. It's nice to dream of a utopia with no violence and no bad guys and no need for self-defense, but I will raise my kids (my daughter in particular) to be able and willing to defend herself. Even in this area I personally know people who have used a gun to stop personal assaults and home invasions long enough for the police to arrive. To raise my daughter to rely on luck for safety seems completely insane.

Hopefully my kids will instill the same values of self-reliance in their kids, and so on, until the criminals are gone. At that point it sounds good to do it your way.

Starhopper said...

"I don't know where you live"

Baltimore, Maryland.

SteveK said...

One Brow: "Don't worry, I know mere facts will not change your opinion."

Sez you. You are correct about white-on-white crime.

Since whites go out of their way to kill more whites than blacks, where is the racism against blacks? If the driving factor is racism you'd expect whites to use their guns to target blacks at a higher rate, but we see the exact opposite.

Blacks target whites at a higher rate. Is that racist?

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: "(1)you did not poimt out w/w crime but put in your argumet in terms of b/w. Just curious is that the way you structured your research?"

See my answer to One Brow. Why did you structure your argument around racist fears, rather than racist behavior? Which one concerns you the most?

Joe Hinman said...

Well Steven my research is not just me looking at one statistic they are genomic from real social science research by real sociologists in peer reviewed journals. they have long studies behind them.there's much more to it than just injection.

you have no research you have only a conjecture from one statistic.

It's not clear what you are arguing. You made an emotive appeal "is is not not justified to protect yourself given ect ect, the notion that Blacks are out to hurt whites we need protection is jut a conjecture,

The evidence that racism is behind at least a quarter of pro gun support is based upon several correlations, and attitudinal research,

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger SteveK said...
Joe Hinman: "(1)you did not poimt out w/w crime but put in your argumet in terms of b/w. Just curious is that the way you structured your research?"

See my answer to One Brow. Why did you structure your argument around racist fears, rather than racist behavior? Which one concerns you the most?

I am quoting the studies,

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: "The evidence that racism is behind at least a quarter of pro gun support is based upon several correlations, and attitudinal research"

I accepted that research and moved on to the statistics of actual behavior, which you ignored.

From a government policy perspective, are you MORE concerned about actual deaths or about wrong-think? The answer, it seems is you are more concerned about the latter. That's a crime in itself.

Joe Hinman said...


I accepted that research and moved on to the statistics of actual behavior, which you ignored.

two problems

(1) it's unscientific to assume you understand the motivations for behavior just from looking at a statistic about behavior,

(2) attitudes motivate behavior if we change attitude we can change behavior,


From a government policy perspective, are you MORE concerned about actual deaths or about wrong-think? The answer, it seems is you are more concerned about the latter. That's a crime in itself.

you are badly in need of a sociology course. you are just going to start a civil war with your approach,

Joe Hinman said...

Here's another problem with inferring from a statistic, The issue was what motivates opponents of gun control. So that means motivation is the issue not behavior. You go further than the question to assert that said opponents are justified in collecting guns because they are being attacked. Baht is irrelevant since I was not blaming people for having guns.

Your assertion does not prove they are not racist. I'm sure they are not all racist but racists fear attack by minorities more than non racists do. So just fearing it is not a justification for Opposition gun control.

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: (1) it's unscientific to assume you understand the motivations for behavior just from looking at a statistic about behavior,

I'm not assuming anything. I'm accepting BOTH the research and the behavior. The behavior might be motivated by the attitudes - or it might not.

(2) attitudes motivate behavior if we change attitude we can change behavior,

Eliminating the attitudes of racism won't eliminate the desire to own a gun. The majority of gun owners aren't motivated by racism. Deal with that fact. Do you have an actual point to make?

you are badly in need of a sociology course. you are just going to start a civil war with your approach,

Perhaps. I'm pretty good with historical facts though. When governments declaw the people so that they cannot defend themselves against tyranny, bad things happen. The second amendment was written for that reason.

One Brow said...

Since whites go out of their way to kill more whites than blacks, where is the racism against blacks? If the driving factor is racism you'd expect whites to use their guns to target blacks at a higher rate, but we see the exact opposite.

I agree the driving factor of most homicides is not racism.

Blacks target whites at a higher rate. Is that racist?

I disagree with the equivalence of "victim is white" and "perpetrator targeted white people".

Even if that were true, if homicide victims were chosen randomly, we would expect to see black people kill four times as white people as opposed to black people, yet the numbers are the reverse of that. If one bought into your association, it's white people who target white people, while black people target black people.

I understand you have all these fever nightmares about black people coming to get you. It's just not true.

SteveK said...

One Brow: "I understand you have all these fever nightmares about black people coming to get you. It's just not true.

I don't have this attitude at all so you can stop saying this.

What I'm doing is challenging Joe to show me the problem behavior motivated by racism. All he has cited is the problem of a few objecting to gun control based on racial fears. Yawn.

Since you agree the driving factor of most homicides is not racism, what's the reason for wanting gun control?

W.LindsayWheeler said...

@Hinman. you do not speak for America.you don't own America.

Who owns America, Mr. Hinman?

That Confederate Statue that was torn down in the South. It is part of Southern culture.

Where is the respect from you Yankees?

It is on Southern Soil, in a post-Confederate State, why can't they have a statue to their former leaders and soldiers?

This is good case why the South shouldn't let Yankees in the South especially Yankee professors in Southern colleges and universities. Yankees are a subversive lot.

Legion of Logic said...

Baltimore, Maryland

The biggest "city" I've ever lived in is Mountain Home, AR. Current population around twelve thousand. Murder rate is usually zero, and from statistics I see that I am eight times more likely to suffer a violent crime in Maryland than I would be in Mountain Home - that's all violent crime including rape, which I wouldn't really be at risk for anyway, but still.

I know that one's environment will inform their perception of different issues, particularly one such as gun violence. I've been in Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis, and places like that, and what I understand from what it would be like to live there sounds rather horrifying. So while I don't have a grasp really on the issues urban people face, I think the reverse is rarely considered when it comes to policy.

Mountain Home as of 2010 census was 98 percent white, less than 0.2 percent black, and overwhelmingly pro-gun and conservative. Obviously fear of black people is not a motivator in a town that has at most a couple dozen of them, but I can tell you that hunting, culture, conservative beliefs on self-defense, and a general distrust of large government and the knowledge of the horrors a disarmed population can go through, are the motivators for why we all (including myself) own guns, and often multiple guns.

If you would object to me advocating taking your car away from you because some other people hundreds of miles away have a drinking/driving problem, you can see what it looks like here to hear Democrats say we don't need some of the guns we have. We aren't the problem, and guns obviously aren't the problem since we have more guns than people and no gun violence.

Starhopper said...

As far as what goes on in Arkansas, I have no dog in that fight - it's up to the citizens of Arkansas to govern their own affairs. But to the people I know face to face, I have had over the years no small success in evangelizing the message of the Love of Christ. A large part of that message is to respect life in all its manifestations. I'm not a pacifist because I believe in defending the defenseless. But I also believe strongly in building up a just society from within. Not by judicial fiat, but by changing hearts and minds - one at a time.

I couldn't care less how many Confederate monuments are up there, as long as people know the true history of slavery, Jim Crow, and the enduring stain of racism. I have zero interest in confiscating peoples' weaponry. I'd rather put any such effort into raising a generation that has no desire to own a gun. I believe efforts to change abortion laws are futile without expanding the percentage of people who regard the practice as abhorrent.

But I am by no means an anarchist. Just laws play a valuable role in minimizing (or even eliminating) injustices and in creating expanded opportunity for all. Unjust laws need to be exposed and expunged. But we must avoid getting ahead of our skis. We will never rid the Earth of evil. Only the Parousia can accomplish that. But we can box it in, and minimize its effects. This is best accomplished by being practical, and not ideological. Go with what works, and who cares if the idea is liberal or conservative?

I'm in the middle of Isaiah right now, and I was struck the other day by the prophet's admonition, "Cease to do evil. Learn to do good." Wow. The two actions are totally separate. The first is basically "Stop!" while the second is a process (learn) that has no ending. That requirement is an eternal one, and (at least here on Earth) will never be fully accomplished.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider amending (or clarifying) the Constitution to be "legislative action". Apples and oranges.

Please go back to your Civics teacher (wasn't it Dolly Madison?) and ask her. Did you put an apple or orange on her desk? :-)

Amending the Constitution is intensely legislative.

One Brow said...

I don't have this attitude at all so you can stop saying this.

It's possible I took the conversation out of context. It's possible you used arguments you were comfortable with, without realizing your level of comfort.

Since you agree the driving factor of most homicides is not racism, what's the reason for wanting gun control?

To make killing people, and suicide, more difficult and less often successful.

One Brow said...

Who owns America, Mr. Hinman?

Everyone who lives in it.

That Confederate Statue that was torn down in the South. It is part of Southern culture.

Yes, a part that was about keeping and enforcing slavery. Some parts of our culture should be demonized, not memorialized.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

@One Brow. See, this is how liberals act. They are the """Enforcers""".

No sleeping dog is allowed to rest.

They go out of their way to search and destroy.

This, and One Brow and Hinman's responses are very enlightening. You will NOT be able to escape their Totalitarian purview. To the Southerners here and elsewhere, To conservatives everywhere--this is what the so-called conservative Ben Schapiro said, ---"We will hunt down racists and hurt their careers".

They are on a Search and Destroy mission. You will conform to their ideology BY FORCE.

Not only that what we are witnessing in America is a Two Tier Justice system. Sean Hannity interviewing Rudy Giuliani spoke of the Two Tier Justice System NOW in America. McCabe lied under oath---no action. General Flynn, NOT under oath, charged and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in a conversation. Hillary obviously had a Secrete private server---No action by the whole Federal Government.

When an Hispanic Council woman launches into a tirade against whites and wants the Battle Creek city symbol, depicting a battle between an Indian and a European Surveyor, (from which Battle Creek gets its name), I immediately protested with harumphs against this. I get charged with loud and boisterous.

The people who tore down the Statue---the District Attorney did NOT bring charges against them!

We live in America in a Two Tier Justice in America---Persecution of Conservatives---and passes for what ever the Left does.

Yes, We are being Demonized as One Brow says. After the Demonization---comes the Killing. That is why we must have guns because we are now in a full blown cold civil war---which is going to turn hot.

And by the Way---Slavery is not Wrong. Slavery is condoned in the Bible. The Church has never condemned slavery. So, One Brow, your demonization doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The Liberals are Totalitarians. They are about ENFORCING their agenda down our throats.

America is Gone. There is no cohesion anywhere in America. Liberals are attempting to create a false cohesion by forcing all to adhere to their agenda of Social Justice.

America is just like 1930s Spain, just like Yugoslavia and Lebanon. America is riven by faction. And hatred built on false assumptions, on the religion of utopianism, will begin killing. They are already suppressing conservative speech---they are firing conservatives from their jobs, and they want to take away the guns.

America is a Failed State.

Starhopper said...

There was a time when I (out of ignorance) swallowed the lie that Confederate monuments were "part of Southern culture". I did not learn the truth until after the white supremacist, neo-nazi rallies in Charlottsville. They were not erected to celebrate one's ancestors (which would have been a good and honorable thing), but to bolster Jim Crow and disenfranchise blacks (a very bad thing).

Now don't get me wrong. There is a legitimate place for Southern Pride, and it actually can include displays of the Confederate flag. Among my favorite photographs from the Second World War is the flag raising, not over Iwo Jima, but Okinawa. At the conclusion of a two month long battle for possession of Shuri Castle, the troops who reached the summit planted the flag - the Confederate flag. The unit involved was from South Carolina.

Now that's class!

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

One Brow: "To make killing people, and suicide, more difficult and less often successful."

Then target knives. Why are knives overlooked when knives kill more people than the scary looking "assault" rifles being blamed for all the problems? We don't hear much from the knife control lobby.


One Brow said...

Then target knives.

Do you honestly believe that it is easier to kill, either other people or yourself, with a knife than with a gun? If not, did you read what I wrote put more than a second's thought into your response? It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you come back with talking points that don't even address what I said.

One Brow said...

When an Hispanic Council woman launches into a tirade ... I immediately protested with harumphs against this. I get charged with loud and boisterous.

They dared to charge a white man with interfering with council business? They did understand that only white people get to have a say in things?

I'm sure you miss the days when being white meant that your opinion always mattered more than other people. Too bad for you.

SteveK said...

One Brow: "Do you honestly believe that it is easier to kill, either other people or yourself, with a knife than with a gun?"

Can you read? I didn't say that or even imply that.

I was directing your attention to what people are wanting to control. If deaths are your concern, it makes more sense to target knives rather than "assault" rifles (and bump stocks). The death statistics speak to that truth, but nobody is arguing for that. Why?

Starhopper said...

In England the sale of knives is age restricted.

SteveK said...

In the USA the sale of knives and guns are age restricted

One Brow said...

Can you read? I didn't say that or even imply that.

When you used it as a response to making it more difficult to kill people, you certainly did. If you know the response is irrelevant, why make it?

I was directing your attention to what people are wanting to control. If deaths are your concern, it makes more sense to target knives rather than "assault" rifles (and bump stocks). The death statistics speak to that truth, but nobody is arguing for that. Why?

See, this is the type of response that makes me think you are on auto-pilot. At no point did I say the overall number of deaths was the concern.

More to the point of knife vs. gun, you know that answer as well as I. Knifes have utilitarian purpose that do not involve killing or threatening to kill other humans. Semi-automatic rifles do not.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

To One Brow, that is why God in all His Infinite Wisdom, said, "Thou shalt NOT sow thy vineyard with diverse seed".

I see the consequences of that.

That Hispanic woman was attacking us white people. She was demanding that our artwork celebrating the hardwork and toil that built this country be taken down. She was advocating genocide by her words.

And I as a man will take this silently? I'm going to stand up for my people. I am not a cowering yellow-bellied effeminate like much of the Anglo-Saxon has become.

Is anybody schooled in the righteousness of Ruth Moabitess, "Your people will be my people". Do you think that Ruth Moabitess attacked the Jewish Temple as an act of Jewish Oppression of her people? Did Ruth Moabitess attack the Jewish supremacy in the land of Israel?

That Hispanic Woman attacked us by saying "We Stole this land". Did Ruth Moabitess attack the Jews by saying they "Stole the Land"?

Her duty was to her new family. That Hispanic woman was commtting Treason and advocating genocide. Pure Evil.

When One immigrates to a country, the immigrants----loyalty---is to the Nation/Race of that country----not to Karl Marx.

SteveK said...

One Brow: "At no point did I say the overall number of deaths was the concern.

You did. Here's the quote.

One Brow: "To make killing people, and suicide, more difficult and less often successful."

'Less often successful' translates to a lower total.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger SteveK said...
Joe Hinman: "The evidence that racism is behind at least a quarter of pro gun support is based upon several correlations, and attitudinal research"

I accepted that research and moved on to the statistics of actual behavior, which you ignored.

bull shit, name the study: you did not present any "statistics" you produced one statistic only I dealt with it, i dealt with it on several levels.

From a government policy perspective, are you MORE concerned about actual deaths or about wrong-think? The answer, it seems is you are more concerned about the latter. That's a crime in itself.

I answered taht too how will you change behavior without understanding it's motivations? answer!

Joe Hinman said...

(2) attitudes motivate behavior if we change attitude we can change behavior,

Eliminating the attitudes of racism won't eliminate the desire to own a gun. The majority of gun owners aren't motivated by racism. Deal with that fact. Do you have an actual point to make?

you don't know that you have evidence to support the claim.In fact I never said I want to eliminate all gun ownership.

Joe: you are badly in need of a sociology course. you are just going to start a civil war with your approach,

Perhaps. I'm pretty good with historical facts though. When governments declaw the people so that they cannot defend themselves against tyranny, bad things happen. The second amendment was written for that reason.

sorry you do not know history, right wingers always think that but what you accept as history is just ideological mythology,

This notion that liberals are going to impose dictatorship and the right thinking truck driver farmers have to keep the guns like modern minute men to fight them is just Reignite rubbish from old 50s tv snows..the mythology you just evoked proves just what I've been saying about gun ownership and bigoted nonsense.
racism is just part of it this whole minuteman BS is fantasy,

Trump longs to be dictator,the Republicans are seeking to destroy democracy, you will not beat them with guns that's stupid. guns are wroth less agasint sap down missles

Starhopper said...

"When governments declaw the people so that they cannot defend themselves against tyranny, bad things happen. The second amendment was written for that reason."

Two things about that comment.

Number 1: Please cite one case in history where a tyranny was violently overthrown by an unorganized, untrained armed populace... I'm waiting... Answer - there is no such case. The whole notion falls under the category "made up fact".

Number 2: That is not the reason the 2nd Amendment was written. I see no reference in it to overthrowing tyrannies. In fact, it says the exact reverse. The amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security (in other words, for the preservation and not the overthrow) of the state.

SteveK said...

What is your point, Joe? It's still a mystery to me.

Some people are motivated by racism. Okay, that's obvious. Therefore, what follows from that?

SteveK said...

Starhopper

1) I didn't say a tyranny was actually overthrown by an unorganized armed populace. I said bad things happen when a tyranny declaws the people. Read it again.

2) Because you got (1) wrong, I think you got the first part wrong too. I agree with your last sentence though, "The amendment states...."

Starhopper said...

SteveK,

That's fine with me. As long as the gun enthusiasts quit fantasizing about overthrowing a supposedly tyrannical US government by means of a bunch of unorganized sportsmen. Not gonna happen. It's never happened - anywhere.

Legion of Logic said...

I would assume the thinking is "so long as the populace is armed, the government will never become tyrannical in the first place" or some such.

Starhopper said...

The populace of Weimar Germany was universally armed. The populace of Tsarist Russian was universally armed. The populace of pre-Franco Spain was universally armed. The populace of pre-Mussolini Italy was universally armed. The populace of pre-Hussain Iraq was universally armed. The populace of pre-Mugabe Zimbabwe was universally armed. The populace of Saudi Arabia has always been universally armed. I could go on, but the idea of an armed populace having any effect whatsoever on whether or not a country becomes a tyranny is total fantasy.

SteveK said...

Starhopper: "I could go on, but the idea of an armed populace having any effect whatsoever on whether or not a country becomes a tyranny is total fantasy."

Obvious hyperbole. It certainly has a LIMITED effect. It makes people think twice (or thrice) about what they are doing and it forces them to work harder to accomplish their tyrannical goals.

Starhopper said...

"It certainly has a LIMITED effect."

When? Where? Kindly cite the historical case of such.

Legion of Logic said...

I didn't look at all the other examples of countries you listed, but it appears that Russia kept increasing gun restrictions until they made it largely illegal to own a gun, and the people complied. What if the people hadn't complied? That's sort of the point of the people being expected to not comply with unjust laws while having the muscle to do so.

Democrat government: Turn in your guns.

American people: *middle finger*

Plus it would not be Bubbas lining up in a field to attack the military. Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, which is what it would become. And the United States would be far more difficult to police just based on sheer size.

Of course people who roll over and submit don't demonstrate the power of an armed populace against an overreaching government.

SteveK said...

Starhopper: "When? Where? Kindly cite the historical case of such"

LOL

So now we are contesting the fact that a well-armed group makes people think twice before starting a fight compared to an unarmed group? Which group would you rather pick a fight with, a well-armed group or an unarmed group?

And when the fight begins does it take more effort, or less effort, to dominate an well-armed group?

Take your time, Starhopper. I'm here all day.

W.LindsayWheeler said...

Hat tip to the Maverick Philosopher who quotes another:

Edward J. Erler offers one of the best explanations of the Second Amendment I have ever read. Clear, scholarly, and right-headed. The folly of Justice Stevens is exposed. An excerpt, with bolding added:

[quote] ** Furthermore, the Declaration specifies that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established—the “Safety and Happiness” of the people—then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” This is what has become known as the right of revolution, an essential ingredient of the social compact and a right which is always reserved to the people. The people can never cede or delegate this ultimate expression of sovereign power. Thus, in a very important sense, the right of revolution (or even its threat) is the right that guarantees every other right. And if the people have this right as an indefeasible aspect of their sovereignty, then, by necessity, the people also have a right to the means to revolution. Only an armed people are a sovereign people, and only an armed people are a free people—the people are indeed a militia. ** [End Quote]

from 2nd Amendment, First principles

Starhopper said...

"the right of revolution, an essential ingredient of the social compact"

Uhh.. I think we settled that in the Civil War. There is no such right.

Legion of Logic said...

Depends on what you believe is the source of rights.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger SteveK said...
What is your point, Joe? It's still a mystery to me.

Some people are motivated by racism. Okay, that's obvious. Therefore, what follows from that?

why don't you try thinking about the words? I said it point blank, I said I'am talking about "gun nuts." The guy who thinks I like to hunt I want a hunting rifle--is he a nut? no,that is reasonable. the guys who needs 57 guns and half of the assault trifles that is a gun nut.

the NRA is another example they wont allow research, they wont allow any kind of screening for mental illness they want allow reasonable safe precautions to reduce the danger to school kids that is gunutism.

gun nuts tend to be racists and motivated by rascism,

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Starhopper said...
"the right of revolution, an essential ingredient of the social compact"

Uhh.. I think we settled that in the Civil War. There is no such right.

May 04, 2018 3:49 PM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Depends on what you believe is the source of rights.

May 04, 2018 10:50 PM


my answerCharles Finney would probably seem outlandish as a source for me to quote, The most successful evangelist in American history, his concerted the highest rate of sticking with their conversion of any evangelist. He was a fundametalist and major voice of the second great awakening. But I have a strange respect for him because after all he was also a leading voice in the abolition movement.

He said revolution is always justified any time the people have reached a level of education where they understand their own plight and know their situation to and when they see better than the leaders what the solution would be.

I am all for having a revolution, I'm ready! the problem is I insist that it be a non violent revolution,so we don;t need guns.

It must be nonviolent for a number of reasons, theological and tactical;these include most Christian form of revolution,government does not know how to cope with non violent civil disobedience.

Unlike the run revolution scenario there are precedents for non violent CD to work:India,South Africa.

btw the gun nut revolution idea is John Birch,

SteveK said...

Joe Hinman: "the NRA is another example they wont allow research, they wont allow any kind of screening for mental illness they want allow reasonable safe precautions to reduce the danger to school kids that is gunutism.

Another example?? The NRA isn't part of your study on racist attitudes. You went from the facts of the study and jumped to the conclusion that the NRA has these same racist attitudes. That would be a non-sequitur.

SteveK said...

Joe Higman: ”I am all for having a revolution, I'm ready! the problem is I insist that it be a non violent revolution,so we don;t need guns.”

You cannot control what other people do. If they want violence, your insistence to the contrary is irrelevant. I want guns for that reason. You don’t have to own one, but don’t tell me I shouldn’t own one.

Legion of Logic said...

"gun nuts tend to be racists and motivated by rascism"

Racists may be gun nuts, but I've seen no evidence that therefore gun nuts are likely racists. I know many gun nuts, and I used to be one myself, and none of us are racists. Race has nothing to do with anything regarding the many other reasons for gun collections.

Starhopper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starhopper said...

"don’t tell me I shouldn’t own [a gun]"

I most definitely will not tell you you shouldn't own a gun, but until the day I die, I will continue to say you shouldn't want to own one.

((corrected posting))

Legion of Logic said...

"I will continue to say you shouldn't want to own one."

Are you saying there are zero situations in which anyone (speaking purely civilian) would want a gun for self-defense, hunting, competition, etc? A woman with a violent ex, someone stuck living in a crime-ridden area, a farmer with pests, competition shooters, none of these should want a gun?

Starhopper said...

Perhaps one out of a thousand persons (and probably way less than that) might have a legitimate need for a firearm, but do we really need 300 million guns in the USA? I'd say no.

What I would say to your question is that our default position ought to be "no guns" with only very rare extenuating circumstances causing us to move off of that position.

Your argument appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be the reverse.

Legion of Logic said...

My argument regarding gun ownership for self-defense is identical to owning a fire extinguisher - the vast majority will never need one, but it's foolish to depend on fortune. Be prepared. The first responder is the victim, not the police or fire departments.

Note this is not an argument for so-called assault rifles, just a general mentality of possessing the most effective means of self-defense just in case.

Starhopper said...

I have had five break-ins into my home over the years, and was once held up at gunpoint in a convenience store, and have never felt the need for a firearm. Never. I'm glad I did not own one, as who knows? Something far worse than having a few possessions stolen could have happened.

I carried a rifle (M-16) for seven years in the Army. I was trained in several sorts of rifles, machine guns, grenades, and even landmines. I understand and respect weaponry, and as a civilian see no need for me personally to possess one. And not only that, I personally know of no one who needs one either.

Legion of Logic said...

One of the people I know who used a gun for self defense was a woman who had a nutty ex husband that for some reason the police could never quite do anything about his stalking outside her house at night and harassing her with late-night calls. Finally one night he broke in and entered her bedroom while she was sleeping, but she heard him and held him at gunpoint until the police arrived and finally arrested the sicko. Incidentally, he had beaten her to the point of requiring facial reconstruction surgery while they were married - he didn't mean well when he broke in her bedroom.

The other admittedly messed around with a woman who was technically still married (separated and going through a divorce), and the soon-to-be ex husband broke into his house with two of his buddies, armed with bats and lug wrenches, and they were stopped by a loaded shotgun pointed at them.

I'm curious how you would explain to these two people that they had no need of a firearm.

Legion of Logic said...

Now in your case, would the situation have been much worse had you pulled a gun? Probably so. But there are also situations that could go much, much more poorly than if you could have defended yourself. I don't advocate everyone open carry pistols at all times or anything like that, but I also believe that people should at the very least be capable of defending themselves and their families from violent assailants, which exist pretty much anywhere there are people. The odds are low for any particular person, but it is better to be prepared and not need it than to need it and be unprepared.

Starhopper said...

It has been shown time and time again that a gun in a house is far more dangerous to its owner and his family than to any hypothetical "bad guy". Now I can't speak to the individual cases you described. I do not know these people. Now I am not saying that no one needs protection. But yes, I am emphatically saying that almost no one dies. Maybe one in a thousand. Perhaps one in ten thousand. In any case, far, far less than the number of guns that are "out there" in contemporary America.

But the way to reduce the absolutely insane number of firearms in the hands of civilians who are not members of a "well regulated militia" (who, by the way, are the only people covered by the 2nd Amendment) is not through confiscation, but through education and evangelization.

Legion of Logic said...

I advocate not being helpless. That's why along with learning to shoot, my kids will also learn about responsibility and safety when owning and handling guns, which would eliminate most of the risk in possessing one. At no point, though, will I ever tell them to put their safety in the hands of fate alone. Quite the opposite, in fact. They will be taught how to use one correctly, and if they opt out of owning one as adults, that's their choice.

A well regulated militia is all fine and good, but any government that criminalizes effective self defense needs to be toppled.

Joe Hinman said...

SteveK said...
Joe Hinman: "the NRA is another example they wont allow research, they wont allow any kind of screening for mental illness they want allow reasonable safe precautions to reduce the danger to school kids that is gunutism.

Another example?? The NRA isn't part of your study on racist attitudes. You went from the facts of the study and jumped to the conclusion that the NRA has these same racist attitudes. That would be a non-sequitur.

what did I say about the words? read them. the paragraph before NRA begins "why don't you try thinking about the words? I said it point blank, I said I'am talking about 'gun nuts.' " Then I say NRA is another example, ie of Gun nuts, not racism gun nuts try to follow along,

Joe Hinman said...

Try i did link gun nuts to racism But I didn't say all gun nuts are racists,a lot of then are Not all NRA people are racists but I am betting a lot of them are. but I brought up NRA as examples of gun nuts in general.

Joe Hinman said...

You cannot control what other people do. If they want violence, your insistence to the contrary is irrelevant. I want guns for that reason. You don’t have to own one, but don’t tell me I shouldn’t own one.

Don't tell me I can;t go swimming! Ooo you try to black me from commingling we are going round and round, yeeeedogies,

Totally irrelevant comment I might persuade many others to help me in my non violent revolution, you fon't know that,it;s worth trying.

what did I say about Banning guns? O I said I am not for banning away all guns to which Boston responds don't tell me I can;t have gun s," wow

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
"gun nuts tend to be racists and motivated by rascism"

Racists may be gun nuts, but I've seen no evidence that therefore gun nuts are likely racists. I know many gun nuts, and I used to be one myself, and none of us are racists. Race has nothing to do with anything regarding the many other reasons for gun collections.

May 05, 2018 1:33 PM

I have seen that evidence and I quoted it, it said there are coronations between what they call symbolic racism meaning correlates of racism and gun ownership, Not to say t all gun nuts are racist but it is a likelihood. but granted just one factor

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...
My argument regarding gun ownership for self-defense is identical to owning a fire extinguisher - the vast majority will never need one, but it's foolish to depend on fortune. Be prepared. The first responder is the victim, not the police or fire departments.

Note this is not an argument for so-called assault rifles, just a general mentality of possessing the most effective means of self-defense just in case.

May 05, 2018 5:09 PM

30 studies show, that's right 30, that guns do not reduce crime,they do not make people safer,and gun in the home creases the chance of gun death by a huge factor,


Melinda Wenner Moyer, "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows.." Scientific

American (Oct 1, 2017)


link:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

(accessed 2/27/18)



The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Guns took more than 36,000 U.S. lives in 2015, and this and other alarming statistics have led many to ask whether our nation would be better off with firearms in fewer hands. Yet gun advocates argue exactly the opposite: that murders, crimes and mass shootings happen because there aren't enough guns in enough places. Arming more people will make our country safer and more peaceful, they say, because criminals won't cause trouble if they know they are surrounded by gun-toting good guys.



Studies were Langley by Arthr Kellermann and associates the 80s ad 90s.



Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not [read More]



The article includes a huge amount of really important statistics and information on studies

Legion of Logic said...

Joe,

I'm aware of those statistics. I'm also curious how you would have convinced the people I mentioned that they didn't need their firearms for protection, and how they would have been safer with no gun when violent attackers were present in their homes.

I don't dispute those studies, though I'd be curious to see what other factors were present, but people who have been saved by their guns, or personally know people who have been saved by them, know the side of the story the left tends to ignore.

I'm not claiming an easy answer with no downsides. We live in a fallen world with evil people. But one of the most unjust, disgusting things I can imagine a government doing to its people is declaring them unfit to defend themselves, self defense being one of the most basic natural rights imaginable.

So to me it isn't so much a question of pure body count as it is a question of justice - is it just for a society to force helplessness if it can be shown to save lives numerically, with helpless victims being the acceptable sacrifice, or is it just for a society to allow the effective defense of one's self and family at the cost of more deaths related to misuse of those defensive tools? I find the former utterly repugnant and the latter highly lamentable, but my guns are safe so long as they are under my control, and so are my children to the greatest extent possible.

Of course, if body count is the issue, we as a society should start talking about alcohol over guns, since alcohol deaths and damage far exceed that of guns.

Joe Hinman said...

LL I would not try to convince people not to have guns. What bothers me is the idea that you can't live without one. I have lived in dangerous places,I ve been in areas with crime and poverty and did not own a gun,I know others in even more dangerous places who did not own guns,they got alone fine so did I.

I think it's a valid motive to have a gun just to want to target practice because you like it. But if you have a gun (not 50 guns and not assault refiles) you have a responsibility to be safe with a gun. You practice gun safety. That means also living up to a social responsibility to limit gun ownership to people who can handle it, that means no mentally ill people,no hateful warped people, no depressed teens.

I owned a gun at one time,I enjoyed shooting it. I almost killed my mother because I was careless. That doesn't mean I want take away every one's guns because I was careless. The NRA has brain washed gun owners to feel that any limit on guns is a complete ban n all all guns.


Guns give people a euphoric sense of power when they connect that to peranoic fears of everything and view guns as the only safe thing to protect them they are not having faith in God.that is making guns an idol.

the sad fact we see a huge number of people would rather lose their children than their guns. A huge number of Christians really don't believe in God but really worship the power of money and guns,

Starhopper said...

"A huge number of Christians really don't believe in God but really worship the power of money and guns."

Exactly true. Too many people think the warnings against idolatry pertained only Old Testament times. But we have our own, even more dangerous, idols today: wealth, power, safety, fitness, national defense, the stock market, (certain) politicians... and yes, guns.

Starhopper said...

That would be "only to Old Testament times". Oh, for an "edit" function!

Chad Handley said...

Everybody's gun is safe until they come home and find their spouse in bed with another man/woman, or their son is struggling with his sexuality and can't see any other way out, or they lose their job and are about to lose their home as a result and can't face it, or until life happens in a million other ways that can lead to tragedy.

The statistics don't lie. A gun in your home way more likely to kill a person who lives in your home than it is to kill an intruder.

Every person who died because there was a gun in their home thought it was perfectly safe to have a gun in their home. And they were right until the day they weren't.

Joe Hinman said...

Mu take on an Clarice by Dr. Report's friend Keith Parsons on secular outpost. Dr Parson's teaches at U. of Houston Clearlake,the issue is brain/mind.

this my response on Metacrock's blog


One Brow said...

'Less often successful' translates to a lower total.

Probably, but it may not. For all I know, people may try to commit more murders or more suicides through some indirect effect I don't foresee.

One Brow said...

W.LindsayWheeler said...

To One Brow, that is why God in all His Infinite Wisdom, said, "Thou shalt NOT sow thy vineyard with diverse seed".

So, you think grapes and humans are identical?

And I as a man will take this silently? I'm going to stand up for my people. I am not a cowering yellow-bellied effeminate like much of the Anglo-Saxon has become.

Got it. You thought that as a white male, you were allowed to be rude and condescending. You were surprised when that didn't work, but rather than blame yourself for your own inability to deal with people, you need to blame them for not bowing down to what you see as your obvious superiority, but others can tell is a hollow shell of weakness and insecurity.

One Brow said...

SteveK said...

So now we are contesting the fact that a well-armed group makes people think twice before starting a fight compared to an unarmed group? Which group would you rather pick a fight with, a well-armed group or an unarmed group?

He was referring to tyrannies, not starting fights. Tyrants don't need to start fights with the populace, they prey on the fears of the populace to gain their support.

One Brow said...

W.LindsayWheeler said...
Furthermore, the Declaration specifies that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established—the “Safety and Happiness” of the people—then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The Declaration of Independence has no status in our laws.

One Brow said...

Chad Handley said...
Every person who died because there was a gun in their home thought it was perfectly safe to have a gun in their home. And they were right until the day they weren't.

So very true.

Legion of Logic said...

Everyone who has used a gun for self defense was glad they were prepared. That's why I'm prepared, and why I will raise my children to be prepared, and will advocate to others to be prepared. Along with this, of course, comes being responsible.

Even if we don't differentiate and see how many people who safely store and handle their firearms, and who have healthy relationships and habits, die from their own guns (close to zero), we can still divide number of gun owners into number of people killed by their own guns, and the risk is ridiculously small. Add to that the fact that I'm not an idiot with mine, and the risk is virtually nonexistent.

One Brow said...

Legion of Logic said...
Even if we don't differentiate and see how many people who safely store and handle their firearms, and who have healthy relationships and habits,

It only takes one mistake or one bad day.

die from their own guns (close to zero), we can still divide number of gun owners into number of people killed by their own guns, and the risk is ridiculously small.

Yet, still larger than the number of times the gun is used in self-defense.

No one is trying to stop you from adding more risk to your life, but you should be honest with yourself that this is what you are doing, for your own sake.