Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Your Tax Dollars at Work, PBS’s Anti-Gun Message

I found this one on the Gun Rights Radio Network forum and found it aggravating…

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06122009/watch3.html

It’s a long anti-gun rant full of the usual fear, uncertainty, and disinformation (FUD). Let’s pull some choice quotes from the article shall we…

And I’m not making this up either: after that shooting at the Holocaust Museum a conservative organization immediately offered those of us on television a chance to interview the founder of the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. His expertise, it is said, is in helping people understand why gun control doesn’t belong in a civilized society. Thanks, but no thanks. And no thanks to his counterparts among Christians and Muslims who use every violent shedding of blood to promote the worship of guns.

OK be honest Bill Moyers, this isn’t about religious organizations killing each other to promote the “worship” guns (seriously find me a religion that says to worship guns). This is about not wanting to hear the other side’s arguments because you know you can’t refute them. Emotional blubbering doesn’t stand up against facts. God forbid you did something crazy like talk and listen to somebody with an opposing viewpoint.

Guns don’t kill people, they say. People kill people. True. People kill people — with guns.

This is very true, I can’t refute it in any way. People kill people with guns. We also kill each other with knives, cars, bombs, household cleaners, scissors, pencils, electricity, water, and our bare hands. Why isn’t he asking for a ban on any of these items? It might be the stereotypical example but cars kill more people than guns and Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than all of my guns combined.

it’s 22 times more likely to shoot a member of their family than an intruder.

That statistic fits very nicely with the one that states you are most likely to get burglarized or molested by somebody in your family. Cripes, better not interact with any of your family members!

Thank you Mr. Moyer for another emotion filled and fact free argument. It’s so nice to read these because they are so easy to tear apart. It’s even more entertaining when you realize that he’s writing this while being paid with our tax money. Wait that isn’t entertaining at all that just makes him a total asshole.

Source: http://gunrightsradio.com/forums2/index.php/topic,1927.0.html

Defense Starts with Awareness

OK it’s story time. I went for a walk this evening as I often do. There are some very nice wooded trails near my apartment, which are pretty secluded. Generally I only meet three or four people on an hour long walk. Today was the same thing, and it was today I really noticed a bad trend.

The most important part of self defense is awareness. You should always been aware of your surroundings when you are out and about. I don’t care if you’re in the local grocery store or on a walk, you should be alert to what is around you. You have a much better chance of defending yourself if you see the threat coming first.

This is not what I saw people doing on the trail. Two of the four people I met were yapping on their cell phones. They had no idea I was coming, nor what was around them. They were off in their own little world. The third person I met was listening to his iPod so loudly that I could make out the music when I was on the opposite side of the trail. The four person was an elderly woman out for a walk, she’s old and probably figures she has nothing to live for, but she was the most alert of the four.

The reason I bring this up is simple, the three people walking around and no paying attention are ripe targets for thugs. For instance if I had wanted to do bodily harm to them I could have easily walked right up behind them and they would have never noticed until it was too late. At that point I’d be in control and they would no be able to effectively defend themselves. Because awareness is so important Jeff Cooper came up with a color code system dealing with just this subject. It is as follows…

White – Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will probably be “Oh my God! This can’t be happening to me.”

Yellow – Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that “today could be the day I may have to defend myself.” You are simply aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place and that you are prepared to defend yourself, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that “I may have to SHOOT today.” You don’t have to be armed in this state, but if you are armed you should be in Condition Yellow. You should always be in Yellow whenever you are in unfamiliar surroundings or among people you don’t know. You can remain in Yellow for long periods, as long as you are able to “Watch your six.” (In aviation 12 o’clock refers to the direction in front of the aircraft’s nose. Six o’clock is the blind spot behind the pilot.) In Yellow, you are “taking in” surrounding information in a relaxed but alert manner, like a continuous 360 degree radar sweep. As Cooper put it, “I might have to shoot.”

Orange – Specific alert. Something is not quite right and has gotten your attention. Your radar has picked up a specific alert. You shift your primary focus to determine if there is a threat (but you do not drop your six). Your mindset shifts to “I may have to shoot HIM today.” In Condition Orange, you set a mental trigger: “If that goblin does ‘x’, I will need to stop him.” Your pistol usually remains holstered in this state. Staying in Orange can be a bit of a mental strain, but you can stay in it for as long as you need to. If the threat proves to be nothing, you shift back to Condition Yellow. Cooper described this as “I might have to shoot HIM,” referring to the specific target which has caused the escalation in alert status.

Red – Condition Red is fight. Your mental trigger (established back in Condition Orange) has been tripped. If “X” happens I will shoot that person.

The three people that were not paying attention were in condition white. When out and about you should always been in condition yellow. Being alert doesn’t even take much. Just be actively listening, watching, and in general paying attention. Seriously what is so important that you need to be on the phone while your out for a walk? Why do you have to be listening to music? Sure both of these things are nice distractions but neither is worth your safety.

When I say this many people often call me paranoid and make up statistics (1 in a million is the usual one) of how unlikely it is that you will be attacked. Well it’s true you have a fairly small chance of being attacked but it’s a chance, and a very possible one. I’d rather be paranoid and alive that oblivious and dead.

Some people jokingly refer to this state of denial as condition rose. These people see the world through rose colored lenses. As far as they are concerned nothing could possible happen to them. These are the people most vulnerable to attacks. They are the ones criminals most want to prey on. Personally I don’t want to be one of these people, hence I pay attention when I’m out and about. And you should do. Remember that phone call can wait until you get somewhere secure.

Wow Some Peoples’ Ignorance Scares Me

So I was poking around on Kotaku this early morning and came across the following story…

http://kotaku.com/5285481/video-game-argument-ends-in-accidental-death

The story itself is tragic since a child ended up shooting his sibling with a shotgun. Although rare these tragedies happen and when they do the anti-gunners run in and jump around in the blood and exploiting the tragedy to meet their own desires. I sometimes wonder if the people in charge of the Brady Bunch jump up and down for joy whenever they hear about a child shooting another one.

But I’m digressing again. The part that scared me most about this story is the comments section. There are a lot of ignorant people out there and being I’m active in the gun community I don’t see them all that often (granted many of my friends are liberal and strongly against guns but they know better than to try and argue it with me).

From a semi-random sampling we have this quote by a user named Quaro…

people who break into homes don’t break in them so they can kill. they do it to steal. so the heck with it let them take what they want, the insurance company gives it’s value back to me, and I report the crime to the police, they find evidence, they catch him end of story.

Tell that to college students whom had two armed thugs break into their home separating the men from the women with the intent to rape the women and kill all of the student…

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

Those thugs certainly didn’t come in to just steal some stuff. They came in with intent to rape and murder. If one of the students didn’t have a gun none of them would probably be alive today. But that’s not all this commenter had to say…

besides if you care enough for your safety to buy a gun, how about installing a security system????

So a security system will allow the police to teleport to your location instantly? Wait it won’t? Well then you still have to wait for the police to arrive which usually takes slightly longer then killing somebody does. The sad fact is the police can’t be everywhere and they can’t protect everybody. Lord knows they do their best but they, like us, are only human. Meanwhile that gun is within reach and ready to be used in the defense of your life.

I’ll also pick a second quote from my semi-random sampling. This is one by a user named OkayOctane…

Best thing to do in a robbery? Barricade yourself in your room, and let them KNOW you’re calling the police. I guess this is where you tell me that only pussies hide, but that’s the problem..you don’t need to be a hero, or have this bravado shit going on. Your TV is replaceable, let them freaking take it.

Yes I’m sure the criminal will instantly stop doing anything illegal once you yell you are calling the police. The criminals know just as well as you do that the police won’t arrive for a while. But don’t get me wrong locking yourself in a room is a good idea during a home invasion, preferably a room where you can cover the entrance with a shotgun so if the invader tries to come on in you can stop them.

Finally the concept of just letting the thief have your stuff is rather stupid to me. I don’t care about my stuff but I do care that the criminal feels they were able to find an easy target. I want anybody who breaks into my place to leave empty handed and scared shitless. Why? Because they won’t be so likely to return. If they know I’m armed and willing to defend myself they crook will probably try a different house next time.

The difference between people who proclaim the right idea is to just give up and do whatever a criminal says and a person who is willing to defend themselves is a matter of personal responsibility. The sheep (person willing to surrender) doesn’t want to take any responsibility. By just giving into the criminal’s demands they aren’t responsible for what happens afterwards, it’s the criminal’s fault. If they live they can justify everything as the criminal’s fault. Meanwhile I, like most gun owners, am not afraid of taking responsibility for my life. I don’t want to be sitting in my hallway stabbed thinking what a bastard that thug was. I want the criminal to be laying in the hallway with a bullet through him not thinking anything at all. I want to be alive and I’m willing to take responsibility for my own life.

The bottom line is your life, and the lives of your loved ones, are the most precious things on this planet. You shouldn’t expect other people to take responsibility for your most precious possession. Realize that in order to be entitled to live you need to be willing to fight for it. Survival of the fittest is how the entire planet works. There are wolves who prey on the sheep but then there are sheepdogs who can fight off the wolves. I personally am a sheepdog and I assume most of my readers are as well.

Brady Bunch Exploiting Holocaust Museum Shooting

As we all knew they would…

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:D_D7Pbov3ooJ:www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php%3Frelease%3D1145&cd=1&hl=en
&ct=clnk&gl=us

Yes it’s a Google cache because I won’t link to those assholes on my site. Anyhow they are already using the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum to beat on the anti-gun war drum. From the ass’s mouth…

“The Brady Campaign extends sympathies to the innocent victims and others affected in today’s shooting at the Holocaust Museum. This shows that having even more guns in more places is the wrong answer to America’s gun violence problem.

Remember that the shooter was a prohibited person so by the very gun laws that the Brady Bunch claim don’t exist the racist prick couldn’t legally own a gun. Gun control works huh? On top of that the officer was able to shoot the gunman before anymore people were injured or killed. I’d say it’s a great case where more guns ended up being better.

Another quote from the ignorant…

Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should re-think their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas. It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe.

Funny nobody is forcing guns into any place. Those of us that believe in personal protection and the right of self defense want the legal OPTION to carry a gun on our person. We aren’t trying to force anybody to carry a gun.

Also gun-free and safe in the same sentence is the biggest oxymoron I’ve ever heard.

The Same can be Said About Guns

A good quote from Bruce Schneier…

Criminals have used telephones and mobile phones since they were invented. Drug smugglers use airplanes and boats, radios and satellite phones. Bank robbers have long used cars and motorcycles as getaway vehicles, and horses before then. I haven’t seen it talked about yet, but the Mumbai terrorists used boats as well. They also wore boots. They ate lunch at restaurants, drank bottled water, and breathed the air. Society survives all of this because the good uses of infrastructure far outweigh the bad uses, even though the good uses are – by and large – small and pedestrian and the bad uses are rare and spectacular. And while terrorism turns society’s very infrastructure against itself, we only harm ourselves by dismantling that infrastructure in response – just as we would if we banned cars because bank robbers used them too.

Summed up criminals use the same tools as everybody else, just illegally. I agree here and wonder how guns should be any different.

Source: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/helping_the_ter.html

The Million Dollar Solution to the Ten Dollar Problem

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the police officer in New York who accidentally shot another officer who was in plain clothes. Well it looks like New York is looking into a million dollar solution to the problem…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525257,00.html

They want to create guns that can recognize another officer’s gun. Here is what they are coming up with…

One idea involves the use of radio frequency tags that would allow officers to pinpoint where other cops are in the city, Browne said. Another involves tags that would work gun-to-gun and use an infrared sensor: When a weapon is pulled from an officer’s holster it would trigger a signal that would be sent to the gun of a nearby officer. The signal may be seen or heard.

Well let us look at the technological problem with either case. The first is the fact that if the police can located other officers via radio transmission then so can any body else with the correct equipment. That means you can easily pinpoint an undercover of plain clothed officer. I’m sure criminals would jump for joy to have this technology.

Then there is the idea of using an infrared sensor on the gun. This again can be replicated and used by criminals to disable police officers’ guns. Also infrared is line of sight so if on officer was partially behind cover there is a good change the sensor will not function as desired anyways.

Now let us look at the cheap solution. Training. The plain clothed officer should have never been shot by the uniformed officer because police should try to identify their target if at all possible. I’m highly doubting a plain clothed officer would be dumb enough to pull a gun on any uniformed officer. That doesn’t make sense so the threat to the uniformed officer shouldn’t be anything at all since no gun would be drawn on them. Simple, elegant, and much more reliable then any gun disabling technology. Also it’s harder for criminals to use it to disarm the officers. Not every problem needs to be solved through the use of expensive technology.

There’s Lies, There’s Damned Lies, and Then There is the Brady Campaign

Via Snow Flakes in Hell it appears Doug Pennington of The Brady Bunch believes all the federal gun control laws can be counted on one hand…

http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4142/Gun-Loving-SonsofGuns.aspx

Hell he doesn’t think he even needs a full hand…

What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it

Hell the Brady Campaign doesn’t even agree with that. Straight from their mouths (it’s an archive.org link of their sight because I refuse to give those pricks any traffic and they will probably change this) there are six federal gun control laws (Doug must be a kind of freaky seven fingered mutant or something)…

http://web.archive.org/web/20080115230225/http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/pages.php?page=6fedlaws

Of course Snow Flakes in Hell points out some other federal gun control methods.

Source: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/06/08/can-count-federal-gun-laws-on-one-hand/

Wow Anti-Gunners are Assholes

Aren’t they always touting their moral superiority? Guess they aren’t so superior…

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=881958

So an established gun range has encountered a problem many ranges eventually do. Even though it was built out in the country society eventually encroached. Now the people who live nearby are mad because apparently shooting ranges make noise. How did they respond? By vandalizing his property of course.

Pricks.

Another Anti-Gunner Doesn’t Understand the Definition of Militia

Remember that blurb about how the anti-gunners should stop using the argument that guns are only for the militia?

http://blog.christopherburg.com/2009/05/29/for-those-anti-gunners-saying-amendment-two-is-for-militia-only/

Well it looks like somebody didn’t get the memo defining what the militia even is. This was found through Sharp as a Marble…

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090602/VOICES05/906020316/1052/OPINION01

From the woefully ignorant article…

The purpose of the Second Amendment, as affirmed by federal courts, was to make sure there were adequate arms available to the “well-regulated militia.” Since the various National Guard units now are armed by the federal government, the “right to keep and bear arms” argument has been rendered moot.

As I discussed in my previous post pretty much all capable citizens are part of the militia. Let us revisit that important excerpt from the United States code dealing with the militia…

(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Oh Fuck two strikes against that morons argument. First the National Guard is considered an independent entity of the militia, not a replacement. Second that pesky part about the unorganized militia which is composed of the citizens of the United States. Once again an anti-gunner has shown us the fact that they don’t understand the concept of logic.

I also have to point out this line from the article…

The Founding Fathers understood the rules of English grammar.

It’s a good thing they did because the person who penned (typed) this article sure doesn’t.

Source:  http://blog.robballen.com/2009/06/02/p3455-not-just-any-psh.post