Gun "Carry" Extremists Causing Accidents

[SecularMotion]

How many gun rights activists does it take to change a light bulb? 301. 100 to blame the burned out bulb on a gun-free zone; 100 to call the replacement a threat to their constitutional rights, 100 to post prepper remarks about Hitler and the ATF and 1 to change a light bulb.

Anyone who covers the gun debate gets a volume of threatening and repetitive emails that seem like they are written by one person with 12,000 different signatures. Passionate and inchoate, the writer is both a "tough guy" not to be messed with and a victim whose "rights" are being violated. Make up your mind!

He is terrified of gun grabbers and the government who want to disarm him. (Psychology books have a lot to say about that.) He is terrified of "bad guys" even though he is in a rural or suburban setting that is virtually crime-free. He is a classic bully with a high fear level that only subsides when he acts fierce and makes others scared. He only feels safe if he can "carry" everywhere and becomes enraged at places that ban guns. He has a huge amount of time on his hands to "defend" gun rights and seems to lack a day job.

But despite all their bluster, carriers do not make themselves or others safe. If carrying made someone safe, no one from President Reagan to Chris Kyle to Sean Collier, the officer allegedly killed by the Boston bombing suspects, would be shot. Nor are carriers trained like the Secret Service, Kyle or law enforcement personnel. Yet despite fallen officers and carriers whose weapons were used against them, the myth that carriers protect themselves and others continues. When a 20/20 special revealed that trained gun carriers could not stop an assailant they knew would attack , there was a cascade of "yes buts" from gun rights activists, rejecting the terms of shootout. Maybe the assailant should have approached from two blocks away and yelled "draw."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gun-Carry-Extremists-Cau-by-Martha-Rosenberg-130522-853.html

[gejohnston]

1. the comments

took the words right out of my mouth.

[Eleanors38]

17. Boy, I'll say. Sliced and diced her article with complete thoroughness...

It seems the kind of yee-HAH anti-gun journalism that Rosenberg sloshes out is the same stuff that's been around for 20, 30, 40 years, updated for the best anecdote possible. It is disappointing that this is what constitutes MSM's efforts. It's like they are caught in a time warp when Duran Duran and the Bee Gees walked the face of the Earth.

[DonP]

2. I'll file this with all the "NRA is dead and doesn't know it yet" articles you guys keep posting.

Another "Cut & Paste" masterpiece with no opinion expressed in support.

We'll all be sure to give it the in-depth consideration it deserves.

(But the comments are really priceless and worth clicking on the link, this idiot author is raked slowly over the coals. Far more posts pointing out the fallacies than supporting their silly claims.)

[rl6214]

6. That's sucular motion for you.

The cut and run master.

[Eleanors38]

16. "The NRA isn't dead, it just smells that way."

[bossy22]

3. I love the old "not trained like police officers"

Does the author even know what the firearms training that many recruits go through entails? Probably not. Like most people unfamiliar to firearms they believe that police go through some quasi military special forces training in order to qualify to carry a gun. This can't be farther from the truth. As an ex-NYPD firearms trainer told me, the basic firearms course in the academy is like drivers ed- it is designed to give the recruit a solid foundation on which to refine his/her skills and knowledge. Recruits are taught basic gun function, safe handling and maintenance, and basic shooting positions (standing, one hand, kneeling, behind objects). They then have "qualify" by passing a range test. This test usually isn't too hard and can be passed by many non-law enforcement shooters. Most major departments only require that the officer go to the range once every 6 months and re-qualify once a year.

[Common Sense Party]

4. "a rural or suburban setting that is virtually crime-free"

Such blind, willful obtuseness.

Maybe Martha or the OP can use their Google skills. Look up "rural violence" or "rural home invasions" or "suburban assaults" or "suburban rapes" and get back to me--and to the crime victims--how "virtually crime-free" their neighborhoods are.

[ileus]

7. Wonder if Martha knows what a primer is?

Safety first and carry on my friends.

[jimmy the one]

8. more guns more siccw lies

How many gunnuts does it take to shoot him/herself in the gunnuts?
First correct answer wins a tee shirt 'I love Gunnuts'.

Several states have actually seen increases in violent crime rates since enabling shall issue concealed carry laws (si-ccw), while all other states, both progun & guncontrol, have seen moderate to dramatic declines in their violent crime rates (since early - mid 90's). Only progun states have seen dramatic increases in viol-crime rates since early - mid 90's.

1 Montana enabled shall issue 1991 & since her violent crime rate near tripled & now rests about 2.5 times higher (~150, 1991 - 365 - 280, 2011).

2 WestVirginia enabled siccw 1989 when viol-crime rate was ~150 & it's now 316, 2011, doubled.

3 South Dakota has had siccw since about the 60's when violcrime rate under 100, since it's steadily risen & now 250, 2011 - tho still quite low.

4 North Dakota siccw since ~60's when violcrime rate was under 50 & remained under 100 until 2005 when it dramatically increased & is now 250, still quite low.

5 Pennsylvania enabled siccw 1989 & vc rate rose slightly & one year was 25% higher than 1989 start year, & remained ABOVE 1989's for 20 years & just in 2009 did it drop below. The average for the 23 year period would place pennsy's violcrime rate about 10-15% higher than prior to enabling shall issue concealed carry. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mtcrimn.htm

[DonP]

9. Interesting, garbled as usual, but an obvious double standard at work

For the last 5+ years, any time someone points out the rise in gun ownership nationally, and mentions the drop in violent crime in the same post. the gun grabbers all foam at the mouth and point out that correlation is not causation, even when no correlation is intended. It's like they are all terrified of finding their deepest held religious tenet might be unfounded.

Now, here you are clearly implying, if not stating outright, that in this handful of states the rise in gun ownership is directly related to violent crime.

With a little critical thinking you'll understand why most of you posts are ignored here.

Now you'll have to excuse me while I go pick out a holster, for the Illinois Concealed Carry that we were told would never come.

[Bazinga]

12. I highly recommend the minotaur from comp-tac.

comfy, secure, tuckable, highly concealable.

[DonP]

13. Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out

I'm thinking of one of my J-Frames for IWB or my old Colt Government Pocketlite for Pocket Carry.

[gejohnston]

10. can you show cause and effect?

why would those crimes be caused by shall issue? If someone jumps through the hoops to get a CCW why would they commit crimes they haven't before. It isn't logical.
Oh wait, population change since it isn't per capita.
Other changes too. More oil field activity.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. Breathtakingly stupid article.

Seriously...that was as vacuous and illogical an article as I've seen cited in a long, long time. Straw men, false dichotomies, sweeping generalizations, bullshit amateur psychoanalysis...you name it, that pungent effusion of fuckwittery has it.

Here's but one example: "But despite all their bluster, carriers do not make themselves or others safe. If carrying made someone safe, no one from President Reagan to Chris Kyle to Sean Collier, the officer allegedly killed by the Boston bombing suspects, would be shot."

Riiiiight...so then airbags, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, lifeguards, etc. are all useless because they don't protect people from harm every single time!!

[jimmy the one]

14. going gunny in chicago

donp: For the last 5+ years, any time someone points out the rise in gun ownership nationally, and mentions the drop in violent crime in the same post. the gun grabbers all foam at the mouth and point out that correlation is not causation,

Huh? since early 1960's national gunstock has risen 4 times from 75 millions to 300 millions, & national violent crime rate is about 2.5 times higher than it was then. MORE GUNS MORE LIES.
From 1960's to mid 1990's national gunstock tripled & violent crime rates rose 5 times, from 160/100k to 755/100k. FORGET ABOUT THOSE YEARS? rather pretending they're not there, & pretending to yourselves that 75 million more guns has made US safer since the decline - most those 75 million new guns went to previous gunowners & gunnuts.
National violcrime rate today ~400/100k, compared with 60's 160/100k, & you're so proud of your stinking guns?

donp: It's like they are all terrified of finding their deepest held religious tenet might be unfounded.

Your remark makes little sense & really redounds back upon your side. It's the 2nd Amendment MYTHOLOGY which is suckled by gunnuts everywhere, as exemplified by piers morgan's 'terrified' guest rambling on about how the revolution would 'commence again' if his 2ndA mythology rights were tampered with even an inch.

donp: Now, here you are clearly implying, if not stating outright, that in this handful of states the rise in gun ownership is directly related to violent crime.

Well, yes indeed, I generally do think violent crime is moderately linked to higher rates of gun ownership, but not necessarily due siccw in those particular states; this particular post I was replying to secmo's OP in order to corroborate this: But despite all their bluster, {gun} carriers do not make themselves or others safe.. the myth that {gun} carriers protect themselves and others continues .. When a 20/20 special revealed that trained gun carriers could not stop an assailant they knew would attack, there was a cascade of "yes buts" from gun rights activists,

..you'll have to excuse me while I go pick out a holster..

How long before we should start listing illinois as a 'leans gun' state? and chicago as 'pro gun'? ... what's that? as soon as the violent crime & murder rates start falling?
Haha, few more years & it's gunworld gonna have to create excuses for, chicagoland.

[gejohnston]

15. can you back any of that up?

Your remark makes little sense & really redounds back upon your side. It's the 2nd Amendment MYTHOLOGY which is suckled by gunnuts everywhere, as exemplified by piers morgan's 'terrified' guest rambling on about how the revolution would 'commence again' if his 2ndA mythology rights were tampered with even an inch.

Alex Jones speaks for Alex Jones. But if you are going to say Alex Jones speaks for us, then Piers Morgan speaks for anti gun people when he can't make a logical argument. Everytime he loses the argument, which is everytime, he stammers his feet and calls the person "stupid" and expects everyone to buy into his personal, uninformed, opinion.