Quote:

---

Remember, be nice.

---

haha, you're new here ain't ya?

With the checks and balances on legally owned firearms in the states I think its a pretty safe bet using one in a crime is going to get you caught, we all know filing down serial numbers isn't really that effective anymore.

Me? I live on an Indian Reservation not far from my little cousins that live inbetween a convicted child molestor and drug dealer. *pats weapon by his desk* Remmy 870 magnum.

See heres the deal. As it is its my legal shotgun versus his illegal .38 and the others illegal .45. In a gunfree world it would be my bokken versus his baseball bat and knife. But thats moot because there is no gunfree area of civilized world.

In the world most anti-firearm advocates want it would be my bokken versus the illegal .38 and .45. Since making guns illegal is only going to affect people that own legal firearms. I don't wanna bring a wood sword to a gunfight.

Answer? Yes. Yes I feel much secure knowing I'm probably more able to outaim a horny pedo and a druggie more than I could dodge bullets. o.o

Yes. Hell, I'd want a gun should someone decide to mug me, or break into my house.

Semioff topic: Is it legal to shoot someone who breaks into your house? I don't know...

I'm not going to bother explaining and say yes, they're legal and I prefer it that way.

Semioff topic: Is it legal to shoot someone who breaks into your house? I don't know...

I think they'd have to threaten or attempt to harm you, but I'm not certain.

Self Defense is a viable reason to fire on another human as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Is it legal to shoot someone who breaks into your house? I don't know...

---

It depends on the state and the "danger" the person(s) presented. As mentioned, self-defense is fine, but if it's a situation where someone can argue it wasn't self-defense (even though someone shouldn't be breaking into your house), you can possibly get in trouble for being overly aggressive--just as police officers do in some cases. It depends.

I'm not a big fan of guns, but I'm not entirely sure what I think we should do with the guns themselves, from a legal standpoint, at the moment.

However, in Canada, I think we need to bring back the reverse onus for bail and parole hearings, when it involves a gun crime. People who are in jail for any gun-related crime and are seeking bail or parole should have to prove to a court of law, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, that there is no danger that they will re-offend. I think we also need an automatic five-year minimum sentence, with certain exceptions.

Also, gun owners should be penalized if they fail to properly secure a firearm.

You don't know the US very well. Two weeks after the legislation goes through...

Mother Jails Deadman's Widow After Her Son Robs Same.

Today the outspoken mother of John Doe, age 16, is pressing charges against the wife of a local man for her and her now dead husband failing to adequately secure a firearm stolen by John and used to kill its owner.

I can see a LOT of these.

I have no real problems with people owning guns as long as they know how to safely use them. My view is similar to conventional approaches to cars - they're fine when used sensibly and by people who know how to drive. If that is maintained, then I do not believe it is necessarily wrong to allow people to own guns.

That said, a lot of people don't properly appreciate how dangerous guns are, and this is where a lot of the problems with gun ownership come from. Personally, I'm quite happy not having just anyone automatically having the right to carry or own a gun, simply because that gives them the potential to do vast amounts of damage with little effort, and potentially no intent. By limiting how much people can have access to any conventional weapon, the threat to life in incidental crimes is vastly reduced. Yes, people may get attacked more often due to being perceived as having less means to defend themselves, but at least they are far less likely to die from the attack. Similar reasoning applies for use of knives/swords, and other weapons.

There is a reason for prefering counter-measures like mace, pepper-spray and attack-alarms, not to mention general common sense approaches to personal safety. They are far less likely to cause accidental loss of life, and still provide a good level of deterrance for any would-be attacker. Owning a gun for hunting/sport purposes is one thing, but as a means of defence, I am less inclined to advocate such extreme measures.

I appreaciate Rico's point, though, that the attacker could still potentially run around with an illegal gun. However, if guns are hard to come by, the risk of this is reduced. Also, how is owning a gun going to protect you against someone who's pointing a gun to your head? If anything, it places you at more risk, since you might start thinking about trying to pull your gun on them - and that's probably one of the most dangerous things you could do. I reckon that there's little point trying to counter-act such an occurance, since there's little or nothing that you can do by that stage.

Sorry for the long post, but I do think this is a fairly complicated issue, and one where there isn't necessarily a right answer. Hopefully, however, I've given you some reasons why I don't think gun ownership is that great an idea.

The thing is, Trim, if guns are outlawed, they WON'T be hard to come by, because less guns being bought on the legal market means bigger profts for smugglers, so the market will be flooded with illegal firearms.

Also, nobody's going to pull a gun if someone's got a gun to their head, but if you hear someone breaking into your house at night, would you feel mor comfortable going to check it out with a flashlight or a shotgun?

I guess I don't give a crap really. I could have actually bought a illegal pistol cheaper than I paid for that shotgun. I know two people out here that sell 'em. If they weren't avaliable legally I bet I know three more people that would keep them "in stock".

I guess the bottom line that back in highschool I might have agreed with Tri. Of course back then I lived in a nice neighborhood, hung out with "good kids" and such.

Once I saw what its like out of that environment. How easy is really is to get drugs, sex, guns, etc. I changed my tune. The people I'm talking about don't care what laws you place over gun ownership, they don't follow the existing ones, because it doesn't affect them. Laws against or limiting gun ownership are not going to lower the avalibility of weapons anymore than the laws against pot and prostitution affect the avalibility of dime bags and whores.

:3

Quote:

---

Also, nobody's going to pull a gun if someone's got a gun to their head, but if you hear someone breaking into your house at night, would you feel mor comfortable going to check it out with a flashlight or a shotgun?

---

Personally, I'd be happier investigating with, at most, some moderately heavy blunt instrument - less chance of damaging various possessions in the house, but still good as a deterrent in a fight.

Granted, I'm one of the "good kids" Rico mentioned, so don't really know how easy it is to get hold of firearms and other illegal items, although I wouldn't be too surprised by the ease they could be obtained. Doesn't mean I think they should be legalised just because some people get hold of them anyway - that's more a social problem to be addressed at a different level. For me, however, I'd be much happier if people didn't have ranged lethal force available without any real training in use required, or for any purpose other than to potentially kill someone who is trespassing, or similar, just to make someone feel safer.

Quote:

---

I'd be much happier if people didn't have ranged lethal force available without any real training in use required,

---

Wouldn't we all. But that isn't going to happen in either case.

Quote:

---

or for any purpose other than to potentially kill someone who is trespassing, or similar, just to make someone feel safer.

---

Difference of opinion. When I lived in the environment you did, I thought the same way. When I moved out here were I had to actually DEAL with the issue, my opinion changed faster than politician on election year.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

And depending on whose statistics you read private gun ownership is the plague of humanity or the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I do know that before outlawing the private ownership of handguns in the UK they had very little gun crime, and now after banning handguns they have slightly more of it (still a miniscule amount). The same thing in South Africa and Australia.

So there is NO historical example of taking guns away from law abiding citizens that has a positive outcome.

But yesterday 70 million law abiding gun owners in the US killed no one. As I sit here I have a Finnish Mosin/Nagant and scoped heavy barreled Mauser in the same room. In my bedroom there is a 44 magnum lever action carbine, 45 pistol (1911A1), and 22 target pistol.

All in all I'd say that I'm pretty well armed for only halving half of my firearms here.... The rest are on loan to my brothers for safekeeping.

So far in my life I have never even needed to draw a weapon at an intruder or attacker, but since I don't have a boken at the moment a magazine of hollowpoints for the 1911 gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when things go bump in the night.

And I disagree with Cycle, if someone breaks into my house, and steals one of my firearms, why should I be punished no matter how my firearm was stored? How many locks do you think is required to stop a criminal? Here's a hint, locks don't stop criminals, locks keep honest people honest. If someone stole your car and committed vehicular manslaughter, should you be punished?

Guns are just another tool, like a hammer or a wrench. If someone stole my hammer and commited murder with it, should I be punished for not securing my hammer properly?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in proper firearm storage, but I do not believe in punishing a robbery victim for the actions of a criminal.

Jimro

Quote:

---

So far in my life I have never even needed to draw a weapon at an intruder or attacker, but since I don't have a boken at the moment a magazine of hollowpoints for the 1911 gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when things go bump in the night.

---

Jimaliscious Rosinflat Ovaltine did you just make a joke? What would your CO say?

I think he did....

OMG I THINK HE DID! Sound the alarms and break out the fine china Rico, its a SPECTACULAR DAY!

SO...FREAKING...CREEPY!!!

Rico,

Yes, truly that was meant to be funny, but this time it is even funnier because at this point in time I really DON'T have a boken, altho I almost picked one up at a gunshow last saturday.

I do however have a Paul Chen "Practical Katana".... And they are definately a good investment to anyone studying the Japanese Martial arts. They are sturdy (and hideously sharp) enough for serious practice, and inexpensive enough to not break your heart if you do manage break one.

Jimro

Quote:

---

And I disagree with Cycle, if someone breaks into my house, and steals one of my firearms, why should I be punished no matter how my firearm was stored? How many locks do you think is required to stop a criminal? Here's a hint, locks don't stop criminals, locks keep honest people honest. If someone stole your car and committed vehicular manslaughter, should you be punished?

---

I think he's referring to more of a Columbine scenario than a home-invasion scenario. If it's some idiot teens getting into an improperly-locked gun cabinet and then taking it to school for some violent show and tell, then by all means they should throw the book at the parents.

Personally, trying to ban guns in the US would be like trying to stop a faucet turned up to full by placing your hand underneath it. The kind of gun control that needs to be implemented is this: you commit a gun crime, your life as you know it is over. Instant maximum sentence, and when you get out you can never possess another firearm again. And if you're caught with another firearm afterwards, instant jail time do not pass Go do not collect $200. They need to make it HURT to commit a gun crime. They need to make the risk/reward ratio fall firmly on the side of 'risk'.

As for my personal stance on guns, I'd like to get a 1911 when I get my own house. Both for protection and because it's just a really cool gun.

Quote:

---

If it's some idiot teens getting into an improperly-locked gun cabinet and then taking it to school for some violent show and tell, then by all means they should throw the book at the parents.

---

Personally, I think that that would be a bad idea.

In the case you present, who wanted to break into the cabinet? The idiot teens.

Who wanted to go and become shoot-a-holics? The idiot teens.

The guns are just a tool. Even if the gun cabinet was improperly locked, is it the parents' fault that the idiot teens decide to kill people?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. (Yes, old line, but it works.)

*returns to his role of observing people's opinions*

Well, as I said earlier, I don't think gun ownership is necessarily a bad thing, as long as people are aware of what they are capable of, and are appropriately trained in using them. As I believe pretty much everyone here on the board is intelligent enough to realise that guns will kill, rather than just injure, in the majority of cases, I'd leave it to a matter of conscience as to whether you felt you needed a firearm for security. I'm more worried about those who aren't aware of the consequences of using firearms - to my mind, it's like handing a set of car keys to someone who's never driven before and telling them to go joy-riding, i.e. a very bad idea for them and those in their environment.

Still, I seem to be in a minority with my views that gun ownership isn't really a great idea - and yes, this could be down to not living in a dangerous area - and I think I've made any points I think are worth making, so I'll leave the rest of the thread to others.

Quote:

---

The guns are just a tool. Even if the gun cabinet was improperly locked, is it the parents' fault that the idiot teens decide to kill people?

---

Yes. Yes it is, because making tools like that readily availble to those who aren't going to use them properly is the height of irresponsible behavior. Just like you don't leave a chainsaw within reach of a hyperactive 4 year-old. Granted, both chainsaws and guns are just tools, however in the wrong hands they are extremely destructive tools and every measure should be taken to insure that they never meet those wrong hands.

It's truly bad parenting and I believe that some of these parents should be punished for the actions of their offspring whom they failed to properly raise. People need to be held accountable for their actions and failures.

Thats just goes back to the truth that people in modern times refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

How many kids do you that would stop doing what they want to do just because the result will be their parents getting in trouble?

People behave 9 times out of 10 of fear of punishment, not because they want to be "good". People fear punishment, not other peoples opinions. Saying, "Don't play with guns or mommy will get in trouble," isn't going to help. If a kid is disobiediant enough to break into a cabinent and steal a firearm, do you really think saying his/her parents will be put away from it will make them think twice?

Further along that line of reasoning someone may make the claim, "Well if their parents can't raise them maybe the state should." Please don't, we've done the state child welfare system to DEATH in the abortion thread.

I blame television. Rotten Powerpuff Girls, teaching kids to fly around and shoot lasers from their eyes! }:O

Yeah, and ninjas, boy do I hate ninjas. :[

To clarify, what I mean to say is people should be fined for failing to properly secure a deadly weapon, just like people are fined today for not locking their cars. Why? Because there's no excuse for leaving a frigging gun out on your coffee table so some crackhead can come steal it.

Cycle,

If you leave your car in your driveway and some "crackhead" steals it and commits a crime, do you believe you should be punished because you didn't secure your car in your garage?

What happens when the car IS in the garage and still gets stolen, are you punished because you didn't use THE CLUB?

Or how about your knives? Did you know there is another proposal going around the UK to have a KNIFE buyback program to "get knives out of the hands of criminals"?

The truth is that DEAD is DEAD, and whether a criminal uses a crowbar, knife, car, or firearm the only person who needs punishment is the CRIMINAL, not the guy at the hardware store who sold the criminal the crowbar, or the clerk at the cutlery store who sold the guy a kitchen knife, or the gun/car owner who had his property STOLEN.

I don't see a difference between a crowbar and a firearm, I am fully capable of killing with both, but you seem to think that firearms deserve that much more legislation.

Hell, you might as well punish me for saying I had a house to break into, if the house wasn't there the "crackhead" wouldn't have had anything to break into in the first place. Clearly it's my fault.

Grow up, figure it out that punishing law abiding people doesn't stop criminals.

Jimro

www.smallestminority.blogspot.com/

Great read on gun violence and poverty.

Jimro

What happens when the car IS in the garage and still gets stolen, are you punished because you didn't use THE CLUB?
Nice strawman there. Obviously there would be a set definition for "properly secured", something along the lines of "in a gun safe", just like "properly secured" means "locked" in the context of the law that gets me an $81 fine for not properly securing my car. It's a perfectly reasonable demand. If you lock a gun in a safe, even if it is stolen from the safe, then there is to be no fine because it was "properly secured". You did your part in preventing bad things from happening. If you leave a gun out on the kitchen table, even if it is not stolen, there should be a small fine just like there's a small $81 fine in BC for leaving a car unlocked and unattended -- simply to discourage people from leaving unattended and unsecured an item that has a high likelihood of being stolen and used for nefarious purposes.

There is no excuse whatsoever for leaving a gun unattended and unsecured, just like there is no excuse whatsoever for leaving your car unlocked, or disconnecting its alarm system, or disabling its immobilizer. Both items are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands and are pretty much the most frequently-stolen things on earth. Surely you can comprehend the reasoning.

I don't see a difference between a crowbar and a firearm, I am fully capable of killing with both, but you seem to think that firearms deserve that much more legislation.
When was the last time you saw someone pull wood apart with a gun? Saying "guns are tools, just like hammers" ignores the fact that a hammer is a tool for driving nails and a gun is a tool for killing and injuring things. That is its sole purpose.

I think that last time I saw someone "Pull wood apart" with a "gun" was a few years back, during bayonet training. As a side note I use bullets to put holes in wood all the time, it's fun to see the splinters fly.

Vancouver has a silly ordinance, an 81 dollar fine for not locking your car....You say the purpose is to deter crime.

Has that ordinance STOPPED car theft? Has it even demonstrably reduced car theft?

So locking your car is "properly securing it", but you want all firearms to be in a safe, just because locking your house isn't enough protection...

Nearly all the possessions you have can be used to kill someone. Your computer could be dropped on someones head, your pajama drawstring can make a fine garotte, your baseball or cricket bat or hockey stick is an excellent bludgeoning weapon.

Your sports equipment is deadly, you should keep it in a safe, or be fined if it is stolen and used in a crime.

The point I have made, several times now, is that I as a private citizen am not responsible for other peoples actions. To make me responsible for other peoples actions is injustice.

Jimro

Quote:

---

...As I sit here I have a Finnish Mosin/Nagant and scoped heavy barreled Mauser in the same room. In my bedroom there is a 44 magnum lever action carbine, 45 pistol (1911A1), and 22 target pistol.

All in all I'd say that I'm pretty well armed for only halving half of my firearms here....

So far in my life I have never even needed to draw a weapon at an intruder or attacker, but since I don't have a boken at the moment a magazine of hollowpoints for the 1911 gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling when things go bump in the night.

---

I agree with Master Jimro, full-heartenly. I will agree with whatever the guy with the gun tells me to.(backs away slowly)

Seriously thought, I agree with Jimro and Rico on this. Even if there is a gun ban, it won't stop gun crimes. Criminals will just get them another way. People may not do what they want, but ultimately do what they chose to do regardless of the law or anyone else for the matter. My only issues is the types of guns that a honest citizens can get (machine guns, armor piercing bullets, and such) and probably how many a person can legally own. I mean such things seem... excessive.

Also:

Nearly all the possessions you have can be used to kill someone. Your computer could be dropped on someones head, your pajama drawstring can make a fine garotte, your baseball or cricket bat or hockey stick is an excellent bludgeoning weapon.

Yeah but how many of these things can hurt or kill someone who doesn't have to share the same room with... with the exception of dropping it on someone. Guns have the larger range then must of the possesions you mention.

Ah, so lethality isn't the problem it's the RANGE that's the problem.

Most of my rifles could easily place a bullet in your head at 200 meters, and chest shots out 600. That's with a skilled marksman pulling the trigger. Most of you jokers would have to train hard to master the basics of trigger pull, sight alignment, breath control, and learn not to flinch when the recoil feels like it will dislocate your arm.

However, how many crimes are committed at those ranges? Umm...assassinations? It takes time, effort, and training to master long range marksmanship. And if someone wants you dead, they are going to succeed if they are persistant enough.

None, most "crackheads" are VERY close to their victims, and use poor technique. Anyone remember those two guys who rampaged through north hollywood with AK's and body armor? For the number of rounds fired, the number of deaths was miniscule.

Criminals are not snipers or sharpshooters. Criminals misuse firearms and knives/crowbars/bottles.

After all, a ten pound rifle that's over four feet long isn't that easy to conceal. My pistols on the other hand, are easy to conceal, but the range pistols are useful is even LESS than the range that longbows, shortbows, compound bows and crossbows are useful.

So RANGE really ISN'T the issue. Guns are not inherently evil, they do not turn a crackhead into Rambo. And if crackhead criminal really wants a gun, he will get it, or get caught in the process of trying to get it.

After all, banning guns does not keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Most of you jokers would have to train hard to master the basics of trigger pull, sight alignment, breath control, and learn not to flinch when the recoil feels like it will dislocate your arm.

---

Way to shove your foot ALL the way into your mouth, Jimro. One day you'll learn the best way to make a point is NOT to insult most of the people listening.

Least I can use the right side of brain. .

~Rico

Sorry Rico, didn't mean to offend, "Jokers" is milspeak for younger guys, kinda like "Cherry" or "FNG", except milder and more endearing. It's not like calling someone a "Poser", "Noob" or other derogatory term.

Comes from the term "Smokin' and Jokin'", what guys do in their down time, swapping embellished "war stories".

Anyways, sorry once again, I did not mean to offend anyone. I guess all this talk about guns and killing just got me all excited... *goes to take a cold shower*

Jimro

Just thought I'd remind ya of peoples feelings before cycle tried to stab you with them.

And did you just make ANOTHER joke? Good heavens I'm taking out apocolypse insurance. o.o;

Jimro, as a point of interest, first time I ever used a rifle, within 10-20 minutes of minimal instruction and intermittent practice (I think I got a total of 15 rounds off), I was accurate to within about 20cm over a range of 50yds. Granted, I was in a prone position and not really having to support the weight of the weapon, but I was hardly exceptional in achieving this.

Given I can achieve this so easily, how difficult would it be for someone to hit a man-sized target over about 100yds after spending an afternoon practicing? I would imagine it would not be that difficult.

Rico,

If I make another joke will you buy a lottery ticket?

Trim,

It isn't that difficult, depending on the rifle and shooter, to hit a man, who is standing still, at 100 yards. But will you kill him? There are only a few spots that you can hit a human that will incapacitate them "instantly", mainly the brain and upper spinal column.

Trim, were you shooting a 22, a 243? an "Assault Rifle"? Because the lethality of the round is directly proportional to the energy remaining when it hits tissue, and what tissue it hits. I have a hunch that if we gave you the same rifle and ammo but at an unkown distance range you might have a hard time consistantly hitting a grapefruit on the first shot, until your ranging skills increased.

However let's not forget that most targets don't stand still for you. There was the "Highway Shooter" down in California who shot at passing cars on the freeway for 15 minutes and didn't hit anybody.

When your target is moving, trying to avoid you, or shooting back at you, hitting a man sized target at 100 yards becomes MUCH more difficult, especially since most people DON'T want to KILL another human being. It is less than 3% of the population who will willingly shoot another human being in cold blood. When you're breathing hard and your adrenaline is pumping it is hard to shoot a tight group.

If you want to assassinate somebody, just murder them in cold blood, you may want to spend the time mastering rifle marksmanship. If you want to hold up a liquor store for the cash for your next fix, accuracy at 100 yards won't do you a whole lot of good.

Jimro

Just thought I'd remind ya of peoples feelings before cycle tried to stab you with them.
The what now? Feelings? What you meen by this.

Besides, even if that had been meant as an insult, and I could tell it wasn't, I would have been less emotionally damaged than I was the other day when I ran out of chocolate ice cream.

See can't you feel his repressed angst?

Anyone who runs out of chocolate ice cream has the right to be angsty.

Jimro

And that's three jokes.

Uh...Rico? I think we have a problem here. o.o

Jimro, fair points on the side of the difficulty of hitting moving targets, and similar, but I felt you were perhaps a bit misleading in your previous statement about accuracy. I was actually firing effectively the British Army standard issue rifle circa 1916, so not an amazingly powerful weapon (the range I was shooting in was only 50yds, so the weapon needed to be relatively weak in order to fit with range safety requirements) so recoil was barely an issue.

I do understand the difficulty in actually hitting someone in a live situation, hence why a lot of people will opt for shotguns - only effective over short ranges, but hit EVERYTHING in their area of effectiveness. Still, I would still imagine it would not take too much practice to become at least moderately competent with a weapon, and people can always potentially get lucky. Just ask Rico once he gets his lottery ticket

Thanks for the clarification Trim, but you make my point for me, that ranges criminals use firearms will be pretty close. Nobody holds up a liquor store by getting prone in the parking lot and demanding money over a bullhorn.

However you might want to study the actual spread of a shotgun, the pellets or buckshot don't begin to open up until at least 25~35 feet, until then they hit almost like a solid slug. And getting hit with a shotgun load WILL NOT KNOCK YOU OFF YOUR FEET, that is pure hollywood fiction.

There was a criminal in Jersey, high on something, who took a twelve gauge to the torso at close range. Blasted a hole right through him, didn't kill him until he bled out over a minute later.

And here is some good reading that puts violent crime into perspective.

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things
that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time,
that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or
as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth
defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William
J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24,
1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most
of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated
assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast
majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time
record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans,
which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is
considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore,
since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual
number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We
may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under
extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will
grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its
hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like
that shell, And someday the civilization they protect will grow into
something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them
from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out
there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it.
There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The
moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There
is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for
your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a
wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for
your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior,
someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the
heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out
unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves,
and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want
fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits
throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more
likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire,
but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.
The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard,
and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though,
is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be
punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not
in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white,
and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide
behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high
school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had
the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just
had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however,
and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to
physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the
little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard
on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt
differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel?
Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog;
it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a
funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter,
checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and
yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a
righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but
they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the
young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most
citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes."
The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on
one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are
truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a
difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he
does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted
of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory
crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement
officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims
by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness.
They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one
out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically
primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can
choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more
Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was
the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to
alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he
learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as
weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll,"
which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to
confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred
among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from
sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving
an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil
of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep,
real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are
wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human
being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral
decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but
you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect
you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are
going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or
love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then
you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip
and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the
wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well
concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt
holsters tucked into the small of their backs Anytime you go to some
form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police
officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is
such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to
massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break,
one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The
other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he
knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that
incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened
fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he
could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His
own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body
and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any
idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was
carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would
probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would
call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars
were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in
their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and
traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against
them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live
with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to
stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when
you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive,
you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror
at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms
with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has
an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they
get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new
violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on
some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his
life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending
that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a
lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a
weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say
this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy.
It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees,
a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the
other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end
or the other.

Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in
America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a
few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the
warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you
move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to
which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and
psychologically at your moment of truth.

The point I have made, several times now, is that I as a private citizen am not responsible for other peoples actions. To make me responsible for other peoples actions is injustice.
I'm not saying you're responsible for whatever someone does with it. I'm saying that it should be illegal to keep a gun in a location where 1) it's not secure, and 2) it could easily be taken and used in a crime. That's it. With all these stolen guns being used in crimes, it seems like requiring people to secure their guns and report them when they're stolen should be a no-brainer. And if you're not keeping them in a safe, you better be checking to make sure those guns are there every damn day.

To me that would seem like common sense, especially considering the military has spent God knows how many years pounding the idea of firearm responsibility into your head. It's all about personal responsibility and accountability.

I say that in a house behind locked doors is "secure". It was secure enough 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and it is today.

And if you are at all concerned, I do check my firearms every day, because I am a responsible firearm owner. I have yet to meet an irresponsible firearm owner, I'm sure they are out there (70 million law abiding gun owners in the US, statistically some of them have to be irresponsible) , but I don't run in those circles.

And just because it's slightly on subject, here's a good link to the racist history of gun control.

www.firearmsandliberty.co...acism.html

Jimro

I forgot to mention this: if you have an illegal/unregistered firearm and it is stolen, there should be some kind of deal where you have no danger of being prosecuted yourself for the prior possession of said weapon, or put on some list somewhere, if you report the theft. Like some kind of confidential hotline.

Firearm Registration is a bad thing. Nothing good comes from it.

Hitler used it to disarm Germany, Castro used it to disarm Cuba, it disarmed the USSR....

When having an "unregistered" firearm becomes a crime, all the law abiding firearm owners go down and register their firearms, and then the Government knows who has what and where. And then they confiscate said firearms, "Don't worry about your safety, the Police will protect you" and now the only citizens who have firearms are the criminals who didn't register them....

Firearms registration is not a good thing, nor does it prevent crime. Heck, having a multimillion dollar "Chamber signature" of every handgun sold in New York has solved ZERO crimes, that's right folks, millions of dollars spent with absolutely nothing to show for it. It's like trying to stop childhood obesity by requiring a sample of every "fast food" sold in New York to figure who the culprit is...

Jimro

Where did I recommend implementing gun registration? I'm just saying -- if, for whatever reason, you have a weapon you're not supposed to have, and it is stolen, there should be some confidential system for reporting the theft.

Quote:

---

I forgot to mention this: if you have an illegal/unregistered firearm and it is stolen

---

Quote:

---

Where did I recommend implementing gun registration?

---

So someone who is already a criminal for having an illegal or unregistered weapon, is suddenly going to do the right thing and report the theft of said weapon to the police.....

Just think about the irony for a moment, let it sink in...

Jimro

www.freemarketnews.com/An...5&nid=3917

RAGING AGAINST SELF DEFENSE: A PSYCHIATRIST EXAMINES THE ANTI-GUN MENTALITY

Friday, February 24, 2006

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
righter@therighter.com

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

Defense Mechanisms

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6

All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.

Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.

This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)

Denial

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.

Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.

This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.

Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.

Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses

Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill".

Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17

Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control.

Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit.

Defense mechanisms distort reality

Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.

People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21

The Common Thread: Rage

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Identity as Victim

If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.

Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?

I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.

In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."

Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders

Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.

Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24

Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.

Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless and therefore dependent.

Anti-gun groups love victims!

From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities.

If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.

The psychological price of being a victim

In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression.

But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.

So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy".

Say NO to being a victim!

But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.

Communicating with anti-gun people

How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind.

Anger and attacks do not work

Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive.

It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions.

Be Gentle

You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day.

As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.

Reversing Irrational thoughts

The Mirror Technique

One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position.

Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.

Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.

It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.

The "What Would You Do?" Technique

Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so.

Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people who should not be trusted with guns!

Defusing Emotional reactions

The "You Are There" Technique

Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.

One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?"

Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.

The Power of Empathy

Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.

Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur.

Not very pleasant, is it?

This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work.

Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent.

This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children".

You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work!

Corrective Experiences

Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing.

For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions.

If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers.

As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably.

For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach.

First-hand experience

Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience.

First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety.

Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk!

Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand.

Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces.

In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast.

But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner.

Why these techniques do not always work

You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.

You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31

Conclusion

By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.

Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.

2000, Sarah Thompson.

Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights.

Notes

1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999.

2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2.

3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20.

4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433.

5 Brenner 1973. P. 91.

6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432.

7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137.

8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000.

9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.

10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.]

11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187.

12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.

14 Brenner 1973, p. 85.

15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern m: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [ m exalts nature, animals and environment].

16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54.

17 Brenner 1973, p. 92.

18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219.

19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410.

20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12.

21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.

22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). www.jewishworldreview.com

23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12).

24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". www.igc.org/Womensnet/dwo...tance.html

25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. www.naacp.org/president/s...eeting.htm

26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html

27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.

28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5.

29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37.

30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217.

31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1

Quote:

---

Guns: Should they be Allowed?

---

Yes.

I have nothing constructive to say, just yes.