I Almost Got Shot Last Night
I had a pretty scary first-hand experience with the American gun problem last night.
I went to have dinner with a friend, which required me driving a few miles, so I walked two blocks from my house to pickup my truck here in the mission.
I got to the corner my truck was parked on, on that corner is a small mom and pop grocery store (you see them just about every block in San Francisco), next to the store were three teenagers playing around, sort of wrestling, or as my dad likes to say “playing grab ass”. Two of them were sort of teasing the other one, bear-hugging him, etc. It appeared to be pretty playful typical teenage-guy horsing around stuff, and I didn’t really think much of it.
They were dressed in typical moronic gang-banger garb, baggy plants, and lots of “bling” sideways baseball hats, more or less the tourettes syndrome of modern American retard fashion. Almost all of the American kids are dressed this way in my hood, so that in itself is not a big deal, but you never know which of these kids are wanna be “gangstas” and which ones are stupid enough to go the extra mile.
Turns out, these kids, at least one of them, was stupid enough.
I crossed the street, waiting for the next light to change, as soon as I got there they started yelling at each other, in that lucid diplomatic way American youth has picked up from whatever rap-artist-of-the-week they’re trying to emulate… “Niggah” this and “Motha fucka” that.
The light changes, and I’m about to cross with this cute Latin girl next to me, when we hear POP POP POP… Really loud, as in M80’s, not firecrackers. It was surreal; I couldn’t believe anyone would use a gun just 20 feet from me over something so stupid as a wrestling match gone awry. For the first few seconds I really thought maybe someone threw a string of powerful firecrackers into the melee, I think the girl did too, as she didn’t seem too panicked either.
That all changed when about 5 seconds later one of the kids comes running right by us, then runs down the block to a gas station, meanwhile the kid who was being harassed runs into the middle of the intersection, waving a gun, screaming all sorts of ridiculous nonsense “I told you Niggah I told you Niggah! That’s right, don’t you mess with me Niggah!”
Then it happened, everyone in a one block radius freaked out and ran. The girl and I bolted down a side street, so did other people who happened to be on sidewalks within a block of this idiocy. I ran for about 3 blocks, and watched the shooter (who I’m guessing was 16 or 17) continue to wander around the intersection, full of bravado, still screaming epitaphs, I couldn’t reach my truck as the guys orbit would take him just 10 yards or so from it every few seconds, the last thing in the world I needed was to be car-jacked by this asshat.
I was now about two blocks away, safely watching this with a small crowd of other people at the end of the street; I imagine the same thing was happening 1-2 blocks away on the other streets as well.
After about three minutes, the sirens started, I have to give the SFPD credit for their quick response; I also heard the tell-tale sounds of ambulance and fire engine sirens, heading in the direction of the gas station.
The shooter disappeared up the street, in the opposite direction from where I was just as the cops arrived, within just a few minutes there were cops everywhere, and everything was cordoned off. I walked back up the street, feeling safe now, and surveyed the results of 16 year old retards having easy access to hand guns in America.
Down at the gas station, an ambulance crew was working on the guy who had run past us, apparently he was shot, and made it to the cashier booth at the gas station before collapsing in a pool of blood.
Back at the Mom & Pop store, the cops were checking out the footage from the security cameras (which I didn’t even know was there) which actually showed the entire thing unfold, in living color, just as if you were watching it from the comfort of your living room.
I finally made it to my truck, went to dinner a little shaken up, and told the whole store you just read to my friend.
I came home almost 2 hours later, and the gas station was back to normal, but they had cordoned off the entire area near the store with police tap, and we’re looking all over the place, for shell casings I would presume.
Another 20 feet, or maybe another 20 seconds, and I would have been right in the middle of this mess, who knows, I may have been hurt or killed.
But hell, it’s good to know responsible gun owners can still buy hand guns isn’t it?
This is the one thing that people like Ron Paul, and the Pro-Gun Lobby will NEVER understand. Sure, in an ideal world, only people kill people, and guns are kept by responsible gun owners, locked in vaults, only used for target practice or killing bambi’s.
But in the real world?
You know, the one that REAL people live in, in this place called REALITY? In that world, tens of thousands of Americans die every year due to gun violence. While it may be the Columbines and Virginia Techs that make the news, it’s the every day bullshit emotional outburst by some fucked up teenager with an easily acquired handgun that kills other people, by the THOUSANDS every month.
This is something Ron Paul just doesn’t understand; there are ramifications to his view that everyone should be responsible for themselves with unrestricted market economies.
In fantasy land, only responsible people own guns, girls and women don’t have unwanted pregnancies, and everyone can buy their own health-care, the reality is far different than that, and until you experience it first hand, you’ll never really know.
Porter
Dustin — On 11-13-2007 at 7:05 pm
Congratulations! You just discovered why family values are important!
I gress us ignorant hicks here in the boondocks knows somethin afteralls…
Better vote for Clinton now. She’ll make you real safe.
John Z — On 11-13-2007 at 7:11 pm
you “gress” what?, uh, afteralls? WTF?
Aaron — On 11-13-2007 at 7:37 pm
Did you get a good enough look at the guy to goto the cops? Are you sure they don’t need your help IDing the clown, or at least to help in some small way?
Brian — On 11-13-2007 at 7:44 pm
I know nearly getting shot can be an emotional experience, but gun violence is a problem in this REALITY. Making laws against guns will not solve the problem, it only makes things worse. Do you really think those Gang bangers are going to turn in their guns because some liberal ideologue decides to outlaw them? Calm down a bit and wake up. The genie is out of the bottle. Guns are everywhere and we cannot afford to have police officers every 10 feet on the city streets. The ONLY defense left is to have legal guns in the hands of responsible citizens.
Porter Venn — On 11-13-2007 at 8:36 pm
Yea Brian, wow what a swell idea!
Lets have everyone armed, so that way, when some moron doesn’t get out of the way on the escalator at the mall, you can, you know, fucking shoot their ass!
Like this clown did…..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/13/BA8BTB1AU.DTL&hw=metreon&sn=003&sc=782
Yea great idea Brian!
And of course, your right you know, guns are not the problem, its people, it’s a people problem! Right Brian? It’s those damn people who pull the triggers… THEY are the problem.
Oh yea, true, if the guy had a Samurai sword he may have still splattered blood all over my ass if he decapitated the guy (because, you know, punk gang-bangers go to Samurai school) anyone care to look up that for me?
Can someone do a search on Samurai sword deaths in American for 2006, I’m curious to know how many homicides by Samurai Swords there were last year, and if it approached the tens of thousands of hand gun deaths, it must be close, right Brian?
Because guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and they use everything at their disposal, Samurai Swords, slingshots, bows and arrows, right Brian? Because you know, guns don’t have any sort of inherent quality that makes it so any dumbshit 16 year old, or say, even a 5 year old, can take a life, instantly, without any skill or effort required, right Brian?
It’s not the guns that make this possible, it’s the PEOPLE who do it, the highly trained, highly skilled, populace of 16 year olds, deranged co-workers, psycho X-Boyfriends, and 5 year olds, who can kill on a dime, whether it be a sword, a slingshot, throwing star, or even …. THEIR BARE HANDS!
Yea, it wasn’t the gun, no way, no sir, that’s not why there are 50,000 gun deaths a year. It could EASILY be 50,000 slingshot deaths a year, but these highly trained killers, well, you know, they just prefer guns.
jack — On 11-13-2007 at 9:47 pm
yeah, make guns illegal, so no one will have them. it worked for drugs, right?
Aaron — On 11-13-2007 at 11:28 pm
Do you know many people that get high on guns?
Porter Venn — On 11-13-2007 at 11:34 pm
Drugs should be legal, if you want to get high on drugs, that’s your business, you’re a junkie? then get medical help. But last time I checked, not to many junkies were attacking people with bongs and crack pipes, heck, I might even be willing to pay to see two drug addicts fighting each other with crack pipes. We live in a culture that glorifies death and voilence, in our movies, in our music, in the way we treat criminals, in the way we treat other people in other nations around the world, so it should be no friggin surprise at all when some dipshit 16 year says he wants to “pop a cap in yo ass” because someone cut in front of him in line. That’s America, circa 2007. However, that same dipshit teenie-bopper would have a lot harder time popping that cap if guns were so prohibitevly expensive, or hard to acquire. Sorry, this isn’t 1776, we don’t need a well armed militia to stop the redcoats from invading, we need a society where you can walk down the street to get some groceries without having to wonder which passerbys are carriering these high tech death sticks that are cheap, easy to get, and easier to use than a #2 pencil.
Julie — On 11-14-2007 at 12:01 am
Unlike drugs, guns are fairly useless when you’re the only one there. Guns are inherently “social.” There are better reasons than the one jack gave to be against making guns illegal.
Now, if we taxed the shit out of gun ownership, THEN we’d be talking: anyone who had a gun and that hadn’t paid the hefty annual tax would be subject to federal tax evasion laws, and imprisonment.
The problem with that solution, of course, is that people will get misty-eyed talking about those folks who have to hunt to feed their families - and yes, those people exist. However, damn few do: we’re increasingly urban (which leads to limited hunting opportunities), and food is cheaper now than nearly ever and anywhere.
Economic incentives RULE!
bob — On 11-14-2007 at 12:12 am
good point, jack
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:13 am
Porter, you make the mistake of levying the entirety of the blame for this and every other gun incident on the gun. The extension of your argument is that if there were no guns in the world, there would be no violence or very little violence.
But guns are just a tool. They are a very effective tool, but tools nonetheless. It is the person using the gun negligently or maliciously that causes all of the violence - the gun is just a means. Consider that guns have only been around for the past several hundred years, yet violence has permeated human societies since their inception, thousands of years prior. There are evil people in this world, and they will use whatever means available to them to commit crimes and violence. Guns are particularly effective in this regard, which is why they are used so often. But, to think that in the absence of guns, there will be an absence of crime and violence is naive and unfounded.
But such theory of discussing a world without guns is pointless because guns are simply too prevalent throughout the world. Guns will never, ever be completely eradicated, and thus we must learn to live and deal with them.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:13 am
One option is banning guns, as you imply to propose - making guns “hard to acquire” or “prohibitively expensive” is a de facto ban. This disarms the law abiding part of the population - specifically, the people who are 1) least likely to use their gun illicitly or negligently and 2) are victims of the criminal element of society. Countless studies and statistics taken over the past decades have shown that not a single gun control law has been proven to reduce crime. If anything, crime has become more prevalent in the face of stricter gun control measures. England has had a dramatic increase in violent robberies and assaults since outlawing handguns. Australia likewise has seen a dramatic increase in crime and assaults since banning and confiscating all of the country’s semi-auto guns. By contrast, Maine has among the highest guns per capita and very low crime. In Vermont, you don’t even need a license to carry a handgun concealed. That should make Vermont a virtual bloodbath right? Wrong. Try 49/50 for crime in the US.
But don’t take my word for it alone. I encourage you to read this article, printed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:14 am
Consider also the efficacy of the gun control laws already in place. California, where the incident you relayed, took place, has some of the most draconian gun control laws in America. To purchase and possess a handgun, like the one used in your incident in CA, you must be over 21. In order to carry a gun concealed (which I presume the shooter was doing as you didn’t mention seeing a gun carried openly) you need a discretionary license issued by the County Sherriff. To say that such a license is hard to get is a massive understated. In nearby Orange County, CA, Sherriff Mike Carona is under a Federal Indictment for, in part, selectively issuing concealed-carry licenses only to “privileged” folk (ie, those he knows and who contribute to his campaign). The logical inference is that he does not do so for “ordinary” folk. Given that San Francisco has repeatedly tried to ban handguns (each time struck down due to its blatant unconstitutionality), I can’t imagine that these underage gangbangers had concealed weapons permits. There are also laws in CA against shooting people and attempted murder.
So, lets review: the gangbanger you passed violated: 1) CA law banning the ownership or possession of a handgun by someone under 21 (or at least under 18 if I am wrong on the 21 year old age), 2) CA law banning concealled carry of a firearm without a permit, 3) CA laws against brandishing a firearm, 4) CA laws against shooting a firearm recklessly, 5) CA laws against shooting a non-threatening person with a firearm (someone fleeing is not a threat to you, by law), 6) CA law prohibiting the attempted murder of another person.
That is 6 MAJOR criminal violations, #6 being second only to ACTUAL murder, that this gangbanger committed. Please tell me which law you could pass that he would follow that would have averted this situation? Why do you think he would be any more likely to follow that law then the 6 laws he already disregarded? Since it is laudable at best that any further gun control measures would be followed by this gangbanger, how does further restricting the rights of a legal gun owner help prevent these type of incidents in the future?
Chris — On 11-14-2007 at 12:24 am
Julie, hunting is one very small aspect of gun ownership. Personal protection is much more important of an issue, as Noah mentions above. And ironically, that we are becoming increasingly urban actually makes the protection issues afforded to us by guns that much more important.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:26 am
One option is banning guns, as you imply to propose - making guns “hard to acquire” or “prohibitively expensive” is a de facto ban. This disarms the law abiding part of the population - specifically, the people who are 1) least likely to use their gun illicitly or negligently and 2) are victims of the criminal element of society. Countless studies and statistics taken over the past decades have shown that not a single gun control law has been proven to reduce crime. If anything, crime has become more prevalent in the face of stricter gun control measures. England has had a dramatic increase in violent robberies and assaults since outlawing handguns. Australia likewise has seen a dramatic increase in crime and assaults since banning and confiscating all of the country’s semi-auto guns. By contrast, Maine has among the highest guns per capita and very low crime. In Vermont, you don’t even need a license to carry a handgun concealed. That should make Vermont a virtual bloodbath right? Wrong. Try 49/50 for crime in the US.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:27 am
But don’t take my word for it alone. I encourage you to read this article, printed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:28 am
Consider too the effect of completely disarming the populace. Guns are an effective tool for WHOEVER WIELDS THEM. That goes for REGULAR CITIZENS as well as criminals. Imagine that your daughter is being threatened with her life by an ex. She goes to the police, but they can’t do anything preemptively - they have to wait until her ex does something physical to her. Her ex responds by shooting and killing her and her friend. But, she went to the police? Aren’t the police there to help and protect us? Actually, no. The police are under no obligation whatsoever, per the United States Supreme Court, to offer any help to anyone - you merely request assistance which may be acted upon.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:29 am
Now before you say “aha! If here boyfriend didn’t have a gun, he wouldn’t have shot her,” recall from above that a gun is a TOOL used to an end. Here, the boyfriends goal was to kill his ex. A gun makes it easier to do so, but that is not the only weapon available to him by any means. Or lets make it even simpler. Lets say he only wanted to beat her up badly, but not kill her. Put yourself in Tiffany’s position. What are you supposed to do? The police, who you thought were there to protect you, can and will do nothing. They will only respond AFTER you have been assaulted. So what do you do? Call 911 as soon as the assault begins? How long will it take for an officer to show up, if one even does? 5 minutes? 2 minutes? 30 seconds? How much damage can be done to you in 30 seconds? In 5 minutes? The exact answer is irrelevant. What is important that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER ANY DAMAGE. Quite literally, your best and only defense is to carry a gun. Nothing else will be as readily available, deployable, and effective in stopping your ex from harming or killing you as he has specifically said he will do.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:30 am
Yes, most of us are privileged enough to live where we don’t need a gun to protect ourselves. But for the few who do, gun control only emasculates their ability to realistically and effectively protect themself from known harm. Gun control does nothing to disarm or stop the very criminals and perpetrators the laws are supposedly intended for.
I respect your right to not want to own or use a gun to defend yourself. But you in turn need to respect the right of your fellow citizens to legally do so. If you don’t, you are simply substituting your own perceived sense of safety for the actual safety of an innocent victim.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 1:12 am
Porter, you make the mistake of levying the entirety of the blame for this and every other gun incident on the gun. The extension of your argument is that if there were no guns in the world, there would be no violence or very little violence.
I’m not saying that at all.
What I’m saying is, for whatever reason, and for better or worse, we live in a very very violent culture.
Would it make sense to introduce a high tech gadget into this culture, that would be, say, a little button, a little button you keep in your pocket, and when you push this button, it will instantly kill anyone you happen to be looking at.
Would it make sense to allow that sort of technical marvel in this day and age? Yes? no?
Well the modern hand gun is just that, a little magic button you can put in your pocket, usually at a pretty cheap cost (legal or otherwise) that you can then use, to kill, whomever you wish, on a whim, or perhaps a dare. Maybe something you think about, or maybe not, it doesnt matter though, because this great little device gives you the option of ending total strangers lives, instantly at your whim.
This isnt about the 2nd amendment, or hunting, or any of that other crap. This is about a technical gadget that ANYONE can put in their pocket, and use to kill people they dont like… for whatever reason.
That… is fucked up, and we need to end this. Other nations seem to just fine without having this little gadget among its populace, I don’t see why we can’t do the same, what are we, children?
Brian — On 11-14-2007 at 6:53 am
Porter,
You sound very emotional about this issue, but frankly you are being naive.
In a perfect world there would be no mental health issues and no social injustices. In a perfect world your need for self defense would extend only to your ability to have a heated public argument. In a perfect world people would respect each other and try to get along.
Tell me where that place is, because I’d like to move there.
Maybe you have some magic wand that will make ALL guns in the world disappear and we will all suddenly find love for our fellow man, and that peaceful wonderful world will be here. Or maybe the idiot in your news article up above will decide he needs to push people down/off the escalator because he’s still a fucked up mental whack job with or without a gun. Call me crazy, but I think the love-in theory is more far fetched. I just do not have enough faith in my fellow man I guess.
You know what we do with people like Mr. Escalator? We call them CRIMINALS, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law possible. It’s incredibly sad that someone had to suffer because of a person like this, but barring mechanisms in society to identify and treat people who are mentally ill beforehand, this person was bound to do some violent act at some point.
How about we try and focus on the social issues in our society to prevent things like this before they happen. I’m ALL for that. Finland, despite recent events, has VERY high gun ownership and VERY low violent crime. Why? It’s a different culture - maybe they can teach us some things.
How about we beef up laws so that committing any criminal act with a gun has more severe penalties? I’m ALL for that too. See the difference I’m talking about? Punish CRIMINALS, not people who want to protect themselves, their families, and their neighbors FROM criminals. Using your “magic button”, as you call it, to kill anyone you don’t happen to like is a CRIME, and by committing it, you deserve to lose your own life, in my opinion.
And by the way, other nations are, in fact, NOT doing well without guns. Let’s take a look at Canada for example. Pretty strict gun controls there. Home Invasion robberies? They are out of control up there. People break into your house, assault your family at gunpoint, take your possessions, and IF you are very lucky you only get injured. Guess what? The laws are so screwed up in Canada that it is actually ILLEGAL for you to lift a finger to defend yourself. IF you fight back you are guilty of a crime, and will be prosecuted and jailed. Criminals know this, so the overall effect is that pretty much any house is fair game for a violent robbery. As a criminal you do not have to worry about getting hurt yourself. As a criminal, why the hell would you NOT do it? Banks have guards, so fuck that noise, let’s go rob houses! Where did those criminals get their guns? It’s not like you can just go buy them from a store up there like you can in the U.S.
It’s a FACT that criminals have guns, with or without gun control laws. It’s a FACT that the right of self defense is a basic human right, despite repulsive laws to the contrary in other countries. All we are left with is the choice between being a Gun Owner or being a Victim… And yeah, it’s a sad choice and it’s fucked up. You can’t get rid of guns. Period. Toss out any idea you can think of to do it. It. Just. Won’t. Work.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 9:44 am
Well your wrong Brian, we can get rid of the magic death buttons, all it takes is is a little will, and the wonderfull effects of time. People can do anything if they put their mind to it, and getting rid of the Insta-Death button is something we could easily do. Sure, it might take a generation to do it, but we could. And you know, eventually we will, I’m sure of that. But, until we do, I’m sure a few hundred thousand more people will have to die, maybe even a million or so, and people with views such as yours will have to finally see the light, or, die of old age so the next generations who no longer want the instant-death buttons can finally change our society. But until that happens, sit back, enjoy the death and carnage, and be sure to worship your precious little toy.
OneEar — On 11-14-2007 at 9:49 am
I concur with the comments noting that the legalization of guns is not the problem. There were numerous laws against what happened in your instance.
I wanted to note the irony you may have missed that the google ads associated with your post all relate to procuring gun-related items.
Nik — On 11-14-2007 at 9:51 am
Porter,
I am an immigrant (legal), I came from a country where almost no one has guns (Malaysia). Did that result in a society where everyone lives in peace and violence never happens? No, on the contrary crime was very high, the criminals might not have guns, but machetes and knives kill just as easily. Home invasions and random muggings were much more common there than in Nashville, where I live now. Every house had iron bars on all the windows. Criminals are much more likely to break into a home when they know the homeowners won’t be armed. A homeowner with a shotgun or glock can scare off three or four criminals, try doing that with your kid’s baseball bat. Guns are not the problem. How on earth would more gun laws stop that gangbanger from using a gun. There’s a law against murder that he’s more than wiling to flout.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 10:51 am
where everyone lives in peace and violence never happens? No, on the contrary crime was very high, the criminals might not have guns, but machetes and knives kill just as easily.
You’re kidding right, you’ve got to be kidding. You’re seriously trying to tell me it’s just as hard to run from a knife than it is to run from a bullet?
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 10:57 am
One Ear, I’m not talking about Gun Laws, I’m talking about the elimination of guns from the populace. We don’t need them, they are a part of our antiquated past. The Modern gun is NOT the gun of our forefathers, the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed, and the reality of our modern culture needs to be recognized, and not ignored.
Oh sure, we could spend the next 100 years talking about gun rights, and gun responsibility, and how only good people are supposed to have guns, and enough laws exists, blah blah blah… meanwhile during that time another million victims will be shot in the head in this country (if we even still exist as a nation in 100 years), and the next generation of gun fans will be saying the same ole shit.
As for the ads, Google controls that, not me.
noitcelfer — On 11-14-2007 at 11:15 am
Porter has obviously never fired a gun before, because he seems to think they are easy to use. Most people use guns for crime within a few feet of their opponent, which at that range a knife is far more effective than a gun. Porter seems to live in a fantasy land where people die nomatter where the bullet strikes them, be it in the leg or simply a toe shot, “Instant Death” is inevitable. Porter needs to stop posting in order to gain social status within his group of friends and start thinking for himself, this can easily be equated by his empty answers from thoughtfull questions.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 11:20 am
Actually I’ve fired a lot of guns, Shotguns, 9mm Pistol, others. and its obvious YOU have never fired a gun before. And while a shutgun is not easy to use, a 9mm sure the hell is, and a Saturday night special? even an child knows how to pull the trigger, as history so obviously shows us, modern firearms are VERY VERY easy to use, anyone can take 2-3 semi automatic pistols and blow the shit out of 20-30 people, anyone can, you know, such as high school kids, disgruntled Postal workers, even 5 year olds can kill with the modern gun. So I’m not sure what planet your living on there Noit, maybe it’s time for YOU to start thinking for youself? can yo do that Noit? Or are you too busy trying to remove that NRA talking-points flyer out of your ass?
Brian — On 11-14-2007 at 11:20 am
Porter you have WAY too much faith in humanity and not nearly enough common sense. We’re not going to get rid of guns by “wishing” them away. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly see anything wrong in a world completely devoid of guns, or nuclear weapons, or idiots for that matter. It’s just not going to happen, especially not by clicking your heels together, closing your eyes, and wishing really hard. Trust me, I’ve tried, but you keep replying.
For the record, I do not currently own any guns, let alone worship them. Where the hell did you come up with that idea? That’s really twisted dude. You asked earlier “what are we, children?” “We” aren’t, but “you” sure are behaving like a petulant child who has found himself in a room full of people who don’t agree with him.
You have never lived with the alternative, so you can be forgiven for not knowing any better I guess. Despite what Michael Moore says, other countries are not peace loving utopias where people can walk the streets safely at night. I moved to Texas from Toronto, Canada 10 years ago in part to get away from the rampant crime and violence. Nik came here from Malaysia, and says crime is very high there with very limited gun ownership.
Without liberal gun ownership, violent crime goes up. It’s a proven fact. We might not have as many deaths from guns, but does it really matter to the victims what particular weapon is being used against them?
How’s the UK doing since banning handguns in 1997? 40% increase in criminal use of handguns in the first two years after the ban. http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
Virginia Tech? It was a gun free zone! That worked out really well didn’t it? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece
Switzerland? All males are legally REQUIRED to have guns and store them in their homes as part of their military service requirements. Switzerland has VERY low crime and virtually no gun crime. Correlation does not imply causation, but what the hell, I’m raising Switzerland as an example anyway. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html ( this article is a really good general read by the way. Not that you will likely read it coming from the gun toting survivalist that you assume me to be. )
Australia? Banned pretty much ALL guns in 1996, including .22 rifles and shotguns. Result? Homicides up 3.2%, Assaults up 8.6%, Robberies up 40%! http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm In the Australian state of Victoria, gun related homicides are up 300%. Prior to the gun ban, crime rates in Australia were declining steadily for the previous 25 years.
Got any exampes where getting rid of guns works Porter? Huh? Thought not. Seriously though, why don’t you consider living overseas for a while just to see? Mexico has strict gun controls. Malaysia? Canada? The UK? Really, give them a try.
Bill — On 11-14-2007 at 11:56 am
Porter, speaking as a person well grounded in reality I thank you for further marginalizing the anti-gun hysteria.
Noah — On 11-14-2007 at 12:00 pm
“You’re kidding right, you’ve got to be kidding. You’re seriously trying to tell me it’s just as hard to run from a knife than it is to run from a bullet?”
A young, fit man breaks into an elderly lady’s home with the intent of killing and robbing her. Scenario 1: the man has a gun. Lady is f**cked. Scenario 2: the man has a knife. Lady is f**cked. Scenario 3: the man has a piece of string. Lady is f**cked. (remember, he wants her dead, so he can just strangle her). Scenario 4: the lady is a gun. Now she ACTUALLY has a chance to survive.
THIS is the sort of situation you have to take into account when talking about banning all guns. Banning guns renders this elderly lady defenseless. Banning guns does not impact the incident you witnessed in ANY way, except maybe to embolden the gangbanger because he knows no one can fight back.
Brian — On 11-14-2007 at 12:00 pm
Deleting my posts now Porter? Can’t stand my arguments? Ok, I’ll try again.
Porter you have WAY too much faith in humanity and not nearly enough common sense. We’re not going to get rid of guns by “wishing” them away. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly see anything wrong in a world completely devoid of guns, or nuclear weapons, or idiots for that matter. It’s just not going to happen, especially not by clicking your heels together, closing your eyes, and wishing really hard.
You have never lived with the alternative, so you can be forgiven for not knowing any better I guess. Despite what Michael Moore says, other countries are not peace loving utopias where people can walk the streets safely at night. I moved to Texas from Toronto, Canada 10 years ago in part to get away from the rampant crime and violence. Nik came here from Malaysia, and says crime is very high there with very limited gun ownership.
Without liberal gun ownership, violent crime goes up. It’s a proven fact. We might not have as many deaths from guns, but does it really matter to the victims what particular weapon is being used against them?
How’s the UK doing since banning handguns in 1997? 40% increase in criminal use of handguns in the first two years after the ban. http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson12.html
Switzerland? All males are legally REQUIRED to have guns and store them in their homes as part of their military service requirements. Switzerland has VERY low crime and virtually no gun crime. Correlation does not imply causation, but what the hell, I’m raising Switzerland as an example anyway. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html ( this article is a really good general read by the way. Not that you will likely read it coming from the gun toting survivalist that you assume me to be. )
Australia? Banned pretty much ALL guns in 1996, including .22 rifles and shotguns. Result? Homicides up 3.2%, Assaults up 8.6%, Robberies up 40%! http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm In the Australian state of Victoria, gun related homicides are up 300%. Prior to the gun ban, crime rates in Australia were declining steadily for the previous 25 years.
Got any exampes where getting rid of guns works Porter? Huh? Thought not. Seriously though, why don’t you consider living overseas for a while just to see? Mexico has strict gun controls. Malaysia? Canada? The UK? Really, give them a try.
bluestar — On 11-14-2007 at 12:01 pm
porter van, how on earth do you suppose it is possible to completly eliminate a piece of technolgy from society world wide? thats living in a fatasy land. the reality of modern culture is that we are human and we are the same as we were 1000 years ago. guns and gun technolgy is not that antiquated. the guns of our forefather were the most modern weapons of war at that time. they created the second amendment as a way to be sure that no weapons owned by the state could not be owned by the people. we have a government for the people BY THE PEOPLE.
furthermore, takeing guns out of the hands of lawabiding citizens will not stop criminals from aquairing them and using them. the key word is criminals. people who don’t follow the law. the idea of gun control and banning guns does not work, has not worked and will never work when it comes to criminals aquairing guns.
Bob W — On 11-14-2007 at 12:14 pm
Where did Brian’s last post go? I was just enjoying reading his references and the post disappeared.
Anthony — On 11-14-2007 at 12:18 pm
You had a run in with thugs/criminals, not the gun problem. The only problem with guns is when they are in the hands of criminals who will still have them if they are outlawed for law abiding citizens. Then you will really be in danger.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 12:22 pm
Brian I didn’t delete your posts. your posts with links in them have to be approved, any comments that link have to be approved otherwise we would be reading about Viagra and weightloss products from the Spambots.
Brian — On 11-14-2007 at 12:26 pm
My apologies Porter. Good policy to have on the unconfirmed links, and I appreciate you getting back to me on that.
Nathan — On 11-14-2007 at 12:29 pm
The facts directly related to this story: Some juvenile delinquent got access to a tool capable of inflicting harm on others, and used the tool inappropriately. Porter was in close proximity when the tool was used, and was in fear for his life (rightly so). The tool used was a handgun of some kind, which was not legally carried or used by the perpetrator.
The facts NOT directly related to this story: Guns exist, and will always exist by virtue of the idea already having been unleashed. No amount of wishing will remove guns from reality - ever. Good thoughts, karma, praying… none of that will get rid of guns. Being as it is, wouldn’t the most sensible path be to allow those of good conscience and will to choose their own destiny when faced with the possibility of harm done by a juvenile delinquent with an illegally carried (and quite probably obtained) handgun? I see no other real moral option. The alternative is to condemn any person at any time to the possibility of death or great bodily harm at the hands of those who are known to ignore the laws.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 12:31 pm
Noah Said…
“A young, fit man breaks into an elderly lady’s home with the intent of killing and robbing her. Scenario 1: the man has a gun. Lady is f**cked. Scenario 2: the man has a knife. Lady is f**cked. Scenario 3: the man has a piece of string. Lady is f**cked. (remember, he wants her dead, so he can just strangle her). Scenario 4: the lady is a gun. Now she ACTUALLY has a chance to survive.”
If the old lady has to run from a guy with a piece of string, or run from a guy with a 9mm pistol, I’ll place my bet on her chances of getting away with the string.
Your argument is logical fallacy known as “Reductio ad absurdum”.
I have a better idea, lets create a society where guns are so difficult to come by, that the poor lady being attacked actually has a chance.
Your idea? Lets arm everyone, so we have have a shootout at the O.K. Corral, good guys .vs. bad guys. This is the problem with the modern intellectually lazy conservative, while you believe everything can be be absolute, and black and white, the reality is far different, yet you hold onto this dream of everthing being the way it “Should” be, while here, in this moment, it’s far different than you could ever comprehend.
PS: No censorship here, if you want to say fuck, just say fuck.
Bill — On 11-14-2007 at 12:45 pm
“I have a better idea, lets create a society where guns are so difficult to come by, that the poor lady being attacked actually has a chance.”
What chance does the old lady have again against the young fit man weapon or no? Put a firearm of any sort in her hands and she does have a chance.
To use a cliche (and I hate cliches, but it applies here): If gun ownership is criminalized, then only criminals will have guns.
Sounds corny, but it is true. There are so many guns in the USA right now that taking them away from law abiding citizens does just that.. takes them away from law abiding citizens. A criminal is not going to give up his/her guns.
Idealism is great, but it needs to be tempered by reality.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 12:48 pm
Porter you have WAY too much faith in humanity and not nearly enough common sense.
As opposed to what? Saying “fuck it” It’s to hard to think this out and come up with a solution, throw your arms up in the air, and say “Arm everyone, kill all them criminal bastards”.
We’re not going to get rid of guns by “wishing” them away.
Wishing? who said anything about wishing, I was talking about a concerted effort to change our society; destroy as many of the magic death buttons as you can, shut down the companies profiting from 50,000 victins of the magic death toy every year, add a teaspoon of the wonderfull effects of time, and you have a place where an arguement over a piece of pizza doesn’t result in ruined lives, orhpaned kids, and Million dollar lifetime incarcerations.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly see anything wrong in a world completely devoid of guns, or nuclear weapons, or idiots for that matter. It’s just not going to happen, especially not by clicking your heels together, closing your eyes.
Once again, I see for you things that are really really REALLY hard are just not appealing? Only magic fairies can solve these sorts of problems right Brian?
That’s one of the differences between a conservative and a progressive.
Conservatives see the way things are, and see rock solid absolutes that will never change.
Progressives see the way things can be, look for answers on how to change the status quo, and are willing to put on the work gloves and get down and dirty to change them.
Without liberal gun ownership, violent crime goes up. It’s a proven fact.
Logical Fallacy. (Argument from Personal Incredulity)
How’s the UK doing since banning handguns in 1997? 40% increase in criminal use of handguns in the first two years after the ban.
Logical Fallacy (Confusing association with causation)
You have no proof that any change in law caused those numbers you speak of. However I challenge you to show me the per capita handgun murder rate in places like the U.K or Japan .vs. The United States. I don’t have time right now to look up that data (at work) but do I really need to? I think we know what those numbers will show.
Virginia Tech? It was a gun free zone! That worked out really well didn’t it?
Logical Fallacy (Argument from final Consequences)
i.e. We have a gun free zone, therefore guns should not have existed there.
Got any examples where getting rid of guns works Porter? Huh? Thought not. Seriously though, why don’t you consider living overseas for a while just to see? Mexico has strict gun controls. Malaysia? Canada? The UK? Really, give them a try.
Got any examples or arguments that are not riddled with Logical Fallacies, care to bore myself, and others on this thread of examples of why things can’t ever change, and why the world is so absolute, and why stuff that sucks is just a big waste of time?
ReadyontheRight — On 11-14-2007 at 1:00 pm
I am glad that you did not get hurt, but as mentioned above, a lot of laws were broken by that idiot in this situation. How would more laws have done anything?
“…Other nations seem to just fine without having this little gadget among its populace,…”
In the 20th Century there have been at least seven major genocides in which at least 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children, have been murdered by officials of governments “gone bad”. The seven cases are:
1915 - 1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered;
1929 - 1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered;
1933 - 1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler were murdered;
1948 - 1952 China, 20 million anti communists;
1960 - 1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Mayan Indians Murdered;
1971 - 1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
1975 - 1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons murdered.
TOTAL VICTIMS: 56 MILLION!
That’s more than 1500 unarmed men, women and children murdered by their own government for every single day in the 20th Century.
I do not consider that doing “…just fine”.
In every case, there was on the books before the murdering began, at least one “gun control” law, sometimes the last of a series. In five of the seven cases, “gun control” was first enacted by a regime that came before the genocide regime — sometimes decades before.
If we somehow disarm the populace, then WHO gets to have guns? Police with 2 years of post-high school training? The military? Won’t we still have the problem of gun availability to criminals if guns are still available for military and police? So…let’s take the guns away from them. I’m sure in this enlightened age, no one will try to take what they want from us by force.
Criminals don’t follow laws. That is why they are criminals. All banning more guns does is disarm law-abiding citizens and eventually makes us all subjects of a future tyrannical government.
Even Liberal Democrats used to understand this:
“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert Humphrey-
ReadyontheRight — On 11-14-2007 at 1:01 pm
Oops - Sorry about the bold print “yelling”.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 1:05 pm
Ready on the right.
You are a shining example of the intellectually lazy Conservative.
Your sad…sad…sad historically innacurate attempt to associate genocide with gun control laws is one of worst possible cases of Confusing association with causation Ive ever seen, not to mention a really really bad attempt at creating an Argument from final Consequences.
Saying gun control was the reason for historical Genocide is akin to blaming high fuel prices for NASA’s lack of returning to the Moon in the past 30 years.
It should surprise NO ONE that someone who calls themself “Ready on the right” would use such a tenious stretch of logic to support their arguement.
But then again, that’s why there are people such as yourself, to remind the rest of us what happens when we get lazy, and do stupid shit like electing morons like George W. Bush into office.
I commend you for your contribution to society Mr. Right, Huzzah! Keep up the good work.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:05 pm
“But hell, it’s good to know responsible gun owners can still buy hand guns isn’t it?”
What does this have to do with gangsta-thugs?
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:07 pm
“Modern gun is NOT the gun of our forefathers, the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed, and the reality of our modern culture needs to be recognized, and not ignored.”
And the computer is not the printing press of our forefathers, so the 1st amendment can go away, too?
annoyedman — On 11-14-2007 at 2:11 pm
Porter, you said “Yea, it wasn’t the gun, no way, no sir, that’s not why there are 50,000 gun deaths a year. It could EASILY be 50,000 slingshot deaths a year, but these highly trained killers, well, you know, they just prefer guns.”
Here is a challenge for you. Post a sign in front of you home, or on your apartment door if you don’t own your own home. Make that sign to read “This is a gun free zone. There are no guns on the premises now, and there never will be any guns on the premises in the future. Likewise, wear a t-shirt proclaiming “I am not armed with a gun.” It sounds as if life on the streets of your neighborhood is a little bit dicey. I am sure that your neighbors will be relieved somewhat to know that you’re not one of those right-wing, gun-totin’ nut jobs. I am equally sure that punk-ass pissants in your neighborhood, like those 3 wannabees involved in the shooting, will be equally interested in the information. Be sure to carry lots of cash at all time. Maybe nobody will hurt you then.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:13 pm
Part 1:
Now, aside from the fact that you’re dreaming about guns disappearing, have you ever considered the fact that guns are the primary civilizing influence of the last 1000 years?
500 years ago, if a thug wanted your wallet, or your life, he got it. Swords/clubs/fists are best used by the strong and agile. That’s not something everyone can train to proficiency. Now, it’s possible for an 80 year old lady to efficiently and effectively defend herself from a gang of 20 year old thugs.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:13 pm
Part 2:
It’s possible for a 100 pound woman to defend herself from a 250 pound attacker.
Guns have taken sheer brawn or strength in numbers out of the attackers’ side of the equation. That’s called an equalizing influence. Without that power disparity, people are better behaved.
Soybomb — On 11-14-2007 at 2:14 pm
It seems to me like you had a run in with the american criminal problem, the gun didn’t make him do it. I mean really lets be honest with ourselves, we can’t make heroin and meth any more illegal and we can’t keep them out of the hands of criminals. Do you think these guys will be dealing with drugs but obey any gun control law?
As a reminder guns are also for more than just target practice and hunting. Personally mine are for defending myself against those who would break the law. They are also one of the final protections against a tyrranical government.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:20 pm
“that’s not why there are 50,000 gun deaths a year.”
Making up numbers? There are ~36000 gun deaths in the US each year. Of those, HALF are suicides. A suicide will find a way regardless of available tools. Rope, pills, and knives are all just as effective as guns for suicide.
~50,0000 to ~16000. That’s a pretty major difference. That’s 0.0053% of the population.
It’s funny, but guns don’t even make the top 10 causes of death in the US. Homicide, in all its varieties, ranks #15. That means, guns are safer than cars, bathtubs, prescription medicine, swimming pools, and power tools. Would you like to remove those, too?
The proper response for you at this point is concession. You should concede, because there is not a single rational, logical anti-gun argument you can make. Anti-gun arguments are emotional fantasy.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:22 pm
And finally, in the words of Dr. Lott:
“My gun is the manifestation of my vow that, on my life, no evil will touch those I love.”
Robert B. — On 11-14-2007 at 2:29 pm
I read your story and I’m confused about something; isn’t it already illegal for a 16-year-old to buy a handgun? So what exactly are you proposing?
Joe — On 11-14-2007 at 2:31 pm
Too bad you didn’t get killed. The world would be better off with your absence.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:37 pm
“Without liberal gun ownership, violent crime goes up. It’s a proven fact.
Logical Fallacy. (Argument from Personal Incredulity)”
Valid facts are a logical fallacy? Interesting interpretation of reality.
“How’s the UK doing since banning handguns in 1997? 40% increase in criminal use of handguns in the first two years after the ban.
Logical Fallacy (Confusing association with causation)”
You keep using those words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.
“You have no proof that any change in law caused those numbers you speak of. However I challenge you to show me the per capita handgun murder rate in places like the U.K or Japan .vs. The United States. I don’t have time right now to look up that data (at work) but do I really need to? I think we know what those numbers will show.”
Logical Fallacy(Arguing from numbers pulled from your nether regions)
Another break from reality?
The UK banned guns, violent crime went up.
Canada banned most guns, violent crime went up.
Australia banned most guns, violent crime went up.
Every place that has tried banning guns has been rewarded with higher rates of violent crime. Verifiable data is NOT a logical fallacy.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:40 pm
“Too bad you didn’t get killed. The world would be better off with your absence.”
That’s a grown-up argument all right.
Try this one:
“It’s too bad you didn’t have the means to protect yourself from the violent felons on the street, if they would have turned their attentions to you. The world benefits from self-reliant citizens”
or
“It’s too bad you didn’t take this unfortunate incident as a learning opportunity. Bad things can happen to good(benefit of the doubt) people. The world benefits when day-dreaming gun-banners wake up and realize that there is an entire world out there that doesn’t conform to the fantasy rules they have set for themselves.”
Beatnik — On 11-14-2007 at 2:43 pm
“Wishing? who said anything about wishing, I was talking about a concerted effort to change our society; destroy as many of the magic death buttons as you can, shut down the companies profiting from 50,000 victins of the magic death toy every year, add a teaspoon of the wonderfull effects of time, and you have a place where an arguement over a piece of pizza doesn’t result in ruined lives, orhpaned kids, and Million dollar lifetime incarcerations.”
Ok - how do you propose we roll up our sleeves and do this?
There are some damned fine manufacturing facilities in Austria, Czech, Brazil, Germany… etc. If we shut down every US company we still need to shut those down. It seems to me that if we were to do that we’d have to first deny those countries their sovereignty - invade. Something which I doubt you seriously propose. Even if you did, it’d be pretty hard without guns.
If you’re comfortable with the government protecting you, fine. But you seem like you’re smart enough to understand this: I don’t place any faith in anyone to prevent bad things happening to me and my family but me, and I don’t see how anything you’ve said should put me at ease.
If you come for my guns, you are sending me a message that my wife’s and daughter’s safety is less important to you than the safety of street thugs who, as you show in your original blog, you have nothing but contempt for anyway.
Surely you can see that I don’t share your viewpoint. I’ll continue to protect myself and my family in the best possible way, and not rely on the highway tax collectors to do it for me.
John Z — On 11-14-2007 at 2:45 pm
“Too bad you didn’t get killed. The world would be better off with your absence” Oh right, now I remember why I never vote Republican.
princewally — On 11-14-2007 at 2:49 pm
“Ok - how do you propose we roll up our sleeves and do this?
There are some damned fine manufacturing facilities in Austria, Czech, Brazil, Germany… etc.”
And it doesn’t take much more than a drill and a hammer to make a (horribly inefficient and ugly) simple gun.
“If you’re comfortable with the government protecting you, fine.”
If he is, it’s outright fantasy. The Supreme Court has upheld that the police have NO(as in none, zero, zip, zilch) responsibility to protect ANYONE. When the government says we are on our own, I refuse to look to the government for help.
N. Pannbacker — On 11-14-2007 at 3:47 pm
Most of the rhetorical impact of this post was sapped by Noah’s post at 12:14 AM today pointing out that the gun was acquired and utilized illegally in the commission of a crime. The gangbanger was already on the wrong end of gun control laws that he hadn’t followed. It seems accordingly dubious that further gun control laws would be followed.
We aren’t children. We can be trusted with means of self-defense. Personally, if you remove guns, as a weak nerd you remove my only plausible method of self-defense. I don’t have the strength or training to engage in effective melee. I’m not strong enough to use a bow or crossbow.
As a deeply ethical person, I will not use a gun to kill random strangers. The same is true for the rest of the public. The people who will use guns to kill are using the gun as a tool for an illegal act. They will have little compunction against using an illegal tool when they already intend an illegal act.
You mention that other nations do “just fine” without guns, even though commenter Noah points out that they actually have high violent crime rates. Other nations may infantilize their populations and expose them to violent crime by banning guns, but we don’t have to. We need not bow to peer pressure amongst nations. The appeal to popularity is insufficient. If all of your friends jumped off of a bridge, would you do it?
N. Pannbacker — On 11-14-2007 at 4:09 pm
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 1:05 pm
I just wanted to say that “Ready on the Right” did not say that gun control causes genocide. He/she specifically said that some of the gun control laws had been in place for decades prior to the actual genocidal regimes. What he/she was trying to imply is that gun control makes it far easier for genocidal regimes to pursue their policies, since the public is less likely to be capable of mounting an effective uprising.
I would like to echo the sentiments of prince wally in saying it’s a shame you weren’t armed. Although it may not have helped the poor kid who got shot while fleeing, if members of the crowd of witnesses to this event had been armed, everyone would have been safer from the gangbanger who was wandering around yelling epithets while continuing to brandish his gun after the event. If a large enough proportion of the crowd had been armed - ie, as in a culture of self-reliance where self-defense is lauded - then he may not have risked the crime in the first place.
Gangsters with guns have advantage only when normal people forsake guns. By their nature guns are equalizing, civilizing devices, as they require some training but little physical strength and fitness to utilize effectively. A few young, fit gangsters have nothing over a crowd (regardless it’s composition) that is armed.
Finally, it’s pretty clear that you’re trustworthy with weaponry. That’s one of the big tragedies of the anti-gun movement. The people who promote gun control are often deeply ethical, trustworthy people of exactly the type that those promoting gun rights WANT to see armed.
noitcelfer — On 11-14-2007 at 6:37 pm
Porter, you’re empty. You’re running on fumes and you’re going too fast to slow down now, because you think you’re almost there, almost at that finish-line with the trophy waiting and the crowd’s approval. Time to wake up Porter.
Porter Venn — On 11-14-2007 at 11:30 pm
Actually your right noitceifer, arguing with right-wing-nuts is an extremley fatiguing experience, and a complete waste of time, it doesn’t matter what logic I use, or how I point out the fallacies in anyones reasoning. It’s a complete waste of time, I would be a fool to even discuss this anymore. You guys will all have to come to your own enlightenment on this, and other issues, or not on your own, growth and change is your responsiblity. It’s just a shame that a million+ Americans (in my estimate) will end up dying tragic deaths before we, as a nation, collectively “Get it” It will happen, but shit, probably not until the 22nd century. I’m out.
princewally — On 11-15-2007 at 6:06 am
LOL
You haven’t addressed a single point anyone has made. You’ve been refuted time and again, and THIS is how you concede?
Beatnik — On 11-15-2007 at 6:31 am
I can do that too: so far you’ve at least used the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, and argumentum ad populum. *Your* argument is not logical.
I and others have given you the crux of our reasoned, well thought out argument - we assert that we, and everyone else on earth, has an inherent right to self defense.
Please at least refute that one.
Please at least engage us in debate.
If not, you lose. Your argument never wins in a fair fight because there are enough people in the world, thank goodness, who won’t take your statist bullshit and eat it every day without thinking about whether or not it’s actually good for them.
Please give us something other than “you don’t agree so you’re a nutjob”. Please. I really want to hear SOME argument in favor of gun control that doesn’t boil down to “you’re a stupid reactionary hillbilly dinosaur so your opinion isn’t valid”.
annoyedman — On 11-15-2007 at 12:19 pm
Porter Venn, you said “Actually your right noitceifer, arguing with right-wing-nuts is an extremley fatiguing experience, and a complete waste of time, it doesn’t matter what logic I use, or how I point out the fallacies in anyones reasoning. It’s a complete waste of time, I would be a fool to even discuss this anymore. You guys will all have to come to your own enlightenment on this, and other issues, or not on your own, growth and change is your responsiblity.”
I respond thusly: 1) you haven’t argued from a logical position, and everyone else has. You have argued from an emotional position, and you’re right - you can’t win a logical argument that way. 2) You have totally failed to point out any fallacies. You’ve simply disagreed, which is not the same thing. 3) You’re right, as long as you pursue the line of argument that you pursue, you WILL always fail to convince someone to change. 4) We HAVE come to our own enlightenment in this, and yours is the position which is dismally uninformed. 5) You ARE right about one thing, and that is that growth and change ARE the individual’s responsibility, which is why I started out in life holding the same views as you, and then one day woke up, changed, and grew up.
It is typically lefty condescension to assume that supporters of the 2nd Amendment are uninformed, unenlightened, immature, and in need of change. In fact, that condescension is so powerful that it bars its holders from doing any research about the 2nd Amendment, or examining the framers’ original intent - INCLUDING HOW IT PROTECTS YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT IN PUBLIC ABOUT REVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MILLIONS OF YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, YOU IGNORANT PUTZ!!! There, now I feel better.
So you lost the argument, and rather than either admit you were wrong, or come up with a more valid argument, you quit. You just quit. Dude, that is really weak sauce.
Soybomb — On 11-16-2007 at 3:23 am
Porter you say “I have a better idea, lets create a society where guns are so difficult to come by, that the poor lady being attacked actually has a chance.”
First I have to ask how you intend to create this world? We can’t even being to keep drugs out of the country. How do we keep criminals from getting their guns the same way they get their drugs? What about all the guns already here? What about guns that would remain here for police and military?
Next I have to ask what sort of chance you think she has? I’m a 6′3″ 26 year old man. I’m certainly able to easily overpower most women, let alone frail old women. Why should those that are older, or disabled, or weaker than me have to hope that I’m just a good guy that wouldn’t ever hurt them? How could you feel morally justified in leaving them to my mercy and not allowing them an equalizer so they really do have a chance?
restless — On 11-17-2007 at 4:27 pm
In these times, in America you just have to have a LOT of street sense. I think of a saying, attributed to Jimmy Hoffa: “Rush a gun, run from a knife.”
There will always be young hot-headed assholes out there. Unfortunately, in these times, there are a lot of them in the US and their number grows day by day.
The Founding Fathers had a reason for writing the 2nd amendment and it has nothing to do with gunplay by kids or jealous husbands or wives.
It was and it is still all about a tyrannical government out of step with the people, a majority that thinks might makes right.
I’m willing to take my chances in the cities of America. When you’re out on any night, any where — walk the walk, be aware.
Welcome to America, Porter. I’m glad you are ok.