DETROIT: Large increase in women getting Concealed Pistol License.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/women-packing-heat%3A-more-getting-concealed-pistol-licenses

The video is dated May 15, 2012 so it is recent. Of special interest is that the NRA instructor and most of the women interviewed are black so that should negate the frequently made charge of racism.

The video says that 75% of the last CPL class was women.

In states with shall-issue concealed carry it is becoming socially acceptable to have a CCW and to carry a gun. People are realizing that those of us who legally carry are the good guys.

Frontlash in action! Yeah.

Edit: Wrong link. Sorry.

[Skittles]

1. ooh! soo cool!!!

cannot wait until EVERYONE is armed!!!!!!!! YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PavePusher]

2. Leave your bigotry at another website. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

4. Bigotry? What bigotry?

Do you not know the difference between sarcasm and bigotry?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Bigotry was used to make the sarcastic point.

YEEHAW is commonly used by bigots to mean a southern redneck expression of enthusiam. Rather odd since the women in the video are northern city ladies.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Oh, you think the Yeehaw was directed at the women?

I doubt that.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. It was directed at all gun owners, women included. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

52. I think it was directed at those who cheer for more guns on the street.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it was directed at either gun owners or women.
Very few individuals are opposed to gun ownership, especially by women.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Do you really think that only southern rednecks are in favor of shall-issue CC?

The video was aboutDetroit, Michigan. Last time I looked at a map that was a northern industrial city.

[Starboard Tack]

60. No, there are rednecks and others around the country who favor it.

Having lived in Detroit, I can see carrying a gun, at times, as being a valid desperate option. Having also lived in the south (Texas and Florida), I've met a lot of rednecks who embrace the idea of an armed population. For some reason, a preponderance of "over my dead body" types tend to populate the south, though by no means exclusively. I have often heard these same folk praise black on black killings. Maybe you've met some too.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. I think it would be nice if the poster would explain theirself as they are the only one who really

knows for sure what they meant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. actually, I think it is the other way around --

Sarcasm was used to make a bigoted point and, if it was alerted I bet it would be allowed to stand.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Have you been following this thread?

Maybe you would care to clarify, as there appears to be some confusion as to your meaning. I took it one way and GSC and Tuesday Afternoon took it another.

[ileus]

3. Progressive women get it...

[Starboard Tack]

5. Correct! Progressive women don't succumb to NRA propaganda.

[armueller2001]

38. You're right... progressive women should just give up

and let themselves get raped rather than use an effective self defense tool.

Or, they could just do as the Illinois State Police recommend, and make themselves vomit to appear less attractive to the attacker.

[Starboard Tack]

43. What a sick bunch of options

[GreenStormCloud]

48. You're the one who wants to remove one of her options. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

50. Which one would that be?

[GreenStormCloud]

53. You want to remover her option to be armed with a gun.

If she is denied to tools needed to defend herself then you don't leave her with much.

[eqfan592]

40. My wife is a Progressive women, a gun owner...

...and soon to be CCW permit holder. And NRA propaganda didn't have a thing to do with it.

[Starboard Tack]

44. I'm sure she has her reasons.

Just because someone is progressive doesn't mean every choice they make is a progressive one. None of us are perfect.

[eqfan592]

56. This is true.

However, in this case, it was very much a progressive choice on her part.

[Starboard Tack]

58. "Progressive" is a subjective term

If you mean she has progressed toward your way of thinking, that is one thing. If you mean it in the political context of "progressive", it's another. I consider the routine carrying of a loaded firearm to be more reactionary than progressive.

[eqfan592]

62. The mere concept of a person having a right to carry...

...is progressive to begin with. It is possible for a persons reasoning to carry to be reactionary, but it is far from automatic.

[Starboard Tack]

64. The right, IMO, should not be open to debate.

If guns are available to any, then they should be available to all. Nothing progressive about it. Individual behavior is what determines how society evolves. The so-called "right to carry" is a political construct devised to divide, not unite the populace. Good guys and bad guys, cops and robbers. The notion of "gun rights" perpetuates the "us versus them mentality, in the same way that borders do.

[gejohnston]

65. I don't think so

The notion of "gun rights" perpetuates the "us versus them mentality, in the same way that borders do.

but gun rights existed before "antis", therefore it is the antis that are the dividers. Urban vs rural, us vs them, "civilized" vs "savages". Lately, thanks the latest trial and lynching by media, false accusations of racism claiming that any exculpatory evidence is "corporate media joining the defense team", which is a common theme in the posts here for example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002700580
That is not liberal in my view. It is not in Bertrand Russell's view either, since it violates his ten commandments for teachers.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/05/bertrand-russells-10-commandments-for.html

I think criminologist James Wright put it best in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary:

[10. GUNS ARE PART OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE]

And then, finally, my tenth observation is that guns are
important elements of our history and our culture. Attempts to
control crime by regulating the ownership or use of firearms are
attempts to regulate the artifacts and activities of a culture that
in its own way is as unique as any of the other myriad cultures that
comprise the American ethnic mosaic. This is what is referred to as
the American gun culture, about which many have written, and, I
believe it remains among the least understood of any of the various
subcultural strands that make up modern society.
The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel strongly about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their worldview. Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the stridency with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly any of these families have ever harmed anyone with their
guns, and virtually none ever intend to. Nearly everything these
families will ever do with their guns is both legal, and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their rights to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
their decency, as though we somehow hold them responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vociferously to such slander?

[eqfan592]

66. Great post! +1 nt

[Simo 1939_1940]

68. I like it! James Wright nails it on a regular basis.

And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy. After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.

Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control.
Criminologist James Wright

[Union Scribe]

76. Detroit city services have abandoned residents

and left them to fend for themselves in case of fire, health emergency, and crime. That isn't NRA propaganda, that's life here on the ground.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I hear you. Detroit is definitely in a bad situation.

I don't blame these women for wanting to be armed as a consequence of a city and society in turmoil. What I object to is the cheerleading from elsewhere. I see it as gun lovers piggybacking on desperate people who have few options. For these women it is truly a question of survival, not pushing an agenda.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Socially acceptable! Really?

Maybe to you and the other consumers of Faux News.

[gejohnston]

8. depends on the society

and what it accepts, or do you have a problem with cultural relativism?

[Starboard Tack]

13. I have no problem with cultural relativism.

It was GSC's use of the term "socially acceptable". Carrying a gun is neither socially acceptable, nor socially unacceptable. It is a personal choice, which comes with a very high level of responsibility. Not something to be cheered or condemned by those with an emotional investment.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Society is changing. You just don't like the change. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Then you can prove the report and interviews to be false? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

11. No, I'm not saying the report is false

It just doesn't rank very highly as a news item, but rather a propaganda puff piece posing as news.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. The increasing numbers of women are getting CCWs is certainly a new item.

An interview of some of the women getting their CPLs is a normal method of presenting the news report. That most of them and the NRA instructor were black was also interesting. You just don't like it when people buy guns and get CCWs.

[Starboard Tack]

15. No, I object to men who justify their own behavior

by referencing the vulnerability of women. I object to the emotional manipulation, not the women's choice.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. The OP was about women choosing.

Nothing in it about men. I think you are projecting. I am pleased to see more people, both men and women getting CCW. Historically it has been almost entirely men who get them. It is good to see women getting interested too.

[Starboard Tack]

19. The story was about women "packing heat"

The OP was about you choosing

In states with shall-issue concealed carry it is becoming socially acceptable to have a CCW and to carry a gun. People are realizing that those of us who legally carry are the good guys.

Frontlash in action! Yeah.

I find nothing "good" about women, or anyone else, carrying guns. If they need to carry, I wish them well and hope they never have to use them or have them used against them. I am baffled by anyone who thinks that more people carrying guns is in any way good, let alone something to applaud.

[gejohnston]

20. I applaud personal empowerment

in all areas.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Me too.

I see nothing empowering about carrying a concealed weapon. In fact it demonstrates the opposite. There is a placebo effect, though.

[gejohnston]

24. The problem with some cities

Detroit being one of them, local governments run short of cash because of lack of jobs, companies extorting corporate welfare, and pissing away money on stupid shit like sports stadiums (corporate welfare at its worse), privatizing parking meters, etc. To deal with it, they privatize stuff to get short term cash and lay off cops.
Lack of jobs can make some people desperate enough to do what they normally would not.
Lack of police embolden the ones that are predators by nature.
One more thing, compare police response times in different parts of the city. Doesn't matter what large city in the US. I think you will find a correlation based on economics.

I see nothing empowering about carrying a concealed weapon. In fact it demonstrates the opposite. There is a placebo effect, though.

I fail to see the logic. Would you have the same opinion if the weapons were less than lethal alternatives?

[Starboard Tack]

26. I'm on board with everything you say

And for a particular individual, carrying a gun might make them feel better and may even be useful. I just don't see it as "empowering". Individual empowerment comes from a feeling of self worth, something that cannot emanate from external forces or gadgets. Any sense of empowerment coming from the habitual carrying a gun is illusory at best, and dangerously delusional at worst.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Feelings of empowerment come from having actual power.

Feeling of empowerment that come only from feelings of self-worth are illusory unless they are accompanied by some genuine power. You can feel as powerful as you want but if some thug is kicking your ass then you don't have much power at the moment, do you?

When my wife fire used her gun to ward of an attacker, she came home feeling greatly empowered. She is a small woman, (4' 10&quot older (61 at the time of the incident) and no amount of feeling of self-worth would have done anything to help against a street thug. But he ran away when he discovered that she had the POWER to end his life right then. Talking about it that evening she remarked, still feeling amazed, "He was afraid of me!"

The power to immediately end the life of an attacker is a reality, not an illusion. Of course, with that power goes responsibility.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. As usual it comes down to your hatred of guns.

That ordinary citizens are able to resist violent crime is a very good thing.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Nonsense. I have no hatred of guns, just stupidity

That anyone should be able to avoid and resist crime is a good thing. How one goes about it is another matter. Routinely carrying a gun to achieve it is not a good thing. It is a very stupid and dangerous thing and those who encourage others to carry guns in public are a danger to everyone.

[Clames]

25. Hoping that the bad guys will take it easy on you...

...is a stupid and dangerous thing. Those who encourage others to take whatever precaution they think is suitable in no way endanger the public. What a load

[Starboard Tack]

27. Hoping the "bad guys" will take it easy on you is naive.

Hoping that carrying a concealed weapon will solve your problems is also naive. Carrying a loaded weapon around in public is an extreme personal choice and extremely dangerous. Encouraging others to do so is highly irresponsible.

[gejohnston]

28. I disagree

Hoping that carrying a concealed weapon will solve your problems is also naive.

Who said it would? There are some very rare problems that such a device is the best if not only solution.

Carrying a loaded weapon around in public is an extreme personal choice and extremely dangerous.

While can be extreme choice, but not really dangerous. The blood in the street is just not there.

Encouraging others to do so is highly irresponsible.

Not always, sometimes discouraging or not allowing others to is irresponsible.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I said routinely carrying.

Of course there are those extremely rare occasions when a gun might save the day. How much blood in the street is acceptable? Trayvon's blood should be enough and there are many Trayvons.
I find it rather disingenuous when I see old white guys in Texas justifying there behavior by exploiting the vulnerability of black women in Detroit. I'm highly skeptical as to their sincerity.

[gejohnston]

32. speaking of blood

Of course there are those extremely rare occasions when a gun might save the day. How much blood in the street is acceptable? Trayvon's blood should be enough and there are many Trayvons.

How many SSgt Jameses? Sorry that is total bullshit. Race has nothing to do with it.
If Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon would have gone home instead of doubling back, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon were not pounding Zimmerman's head on the concrete, Trayvon would still be alive.

I find it rather disingenuous when I see old white guys in Texas justifying there behavior by exploiting the vulnerability of black women in Detroit.

It is not justifying anything, it is simply exposing the "old white guys in Texas" myth. BTW, how do you know GSC is white? Are you assuming he is Anglo or Latino? I don't know that.

How much blood in the street is acceptable?

Ask your average pot head. They don't seem to give a shit how blood soaked their shit is as long as it lights.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Huh?

How many SSgt Jameses? Sorry that is total bullshit. Race has nothing to do with it.
If Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon would have gone home instead of doubling back, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon were not pounding Zimmerman's head on the concrete, Trayvon would still be alive.

I don't understand the reference to "SSgt Jameses". Race has everything to do with it. Zimmerman would not have been following a white kid or calling 911 on him. Trayvon, apparently, doubled back to lose Zimmerman who was freaking him out. (Girlfriend's statement). Trayvon was the victim, defending himself against an armed adult.

It is not justifying anything, it is simply exposing the "old white guys in Texas" myth. BTW, how do you know GSC is white? Are you assuming he is Anglo or Latino? I don't know that.

I wasn't singling out GSC, but commenting on a familiar theme used by hardline gun carriers, some of whom live in Texas. From reading their posts, it is pretty obvious the majority are old white guys. Of course I could be wrong.

Ask your average pot head. They don't seem to give a shit how blood soaked their shit is as long as it lights.

I have no idea what smoking pot has to do with this, but if you are saying pot smokers are responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels, then pot smokers would bear the same responsibility as gun owners for every gun death in the world. It is ludicrous to blame your average gun owner for the actions of international arms dealers. Pot smokers tend to be the most peace loving members of society. The only way to stop narco-violence is to legalize drugs and end the bogus war on drugs.

[gejohnston]

34. elementry

I don't understand the reference to "SSgt Jameses".

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/stand-your-ground-defense-denied-for-trevor-dooley-in-2010-death-of-david-james-in-valrico

Race has everything to do with it. Zimmerman would not have been following a white kid or calling 911 on him.

Bullshit, there is no evidence. That is the narrative that the media created, but there is no evidence race had anything to do with it. There is no evidence Zimmerman is a racist.

Trayvon, apparently, doubled back to lose Zimmerman who was freaking him out. (Girlfriend's statement). Trayvon was the victim, defending himself against an armed adult.

Zimmerman did not chase after him. This call indicates that Zimmerman could not have talked that calmly while chasing someone. Zimmerman is standing around after Martin ran off.

I wasn't singling out GSC, but commenting on a familiar theme used by hardline gun carriers, some of whom live in Texas. From reading their posts, it is pretty obvious the majority are old white guys. Of course I could be wrong.

I have no idea, even if they are middle aged white and Hispanic guys in Texas, so fucking what? In the southwest, Hispanics (or Latinos) are every bit as part of the power structure as Anglos, esp. in parts of Arizona and New Mexico.

I have no idea what smoking pot has to do with this, but if you are saying pot smokers are responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels, then pot smokers would bear the same responsibility as gun owners for every gun death in the world.

They may be, but their connections are not. And the smokers are often too stupid to actually think about it. Mexico, Detroit, London, Toronto does not matter. The typical bong owner is more responsible for gun violence than the NRA combined. Very simply, they fuel it with their money and creating the demand. I am not responsible for two gangsters shooting it out. The NRA-UK is not responsible for some asshole on a motorcycle machinegunning a group of people hoping to hit the gangster the contract was on.
The answer to your larger question, violent crime has been dropping in general. Those by gangs have not, so a greater percentage is gang related. How do you think they get their money? How do you think wholesalers and retailers deal with business disputes and employee theft?

Pot smokers tend to be the most peace loving members of society. The only way to stop narco-violence is to legalize drugs and end the bogus war on drugs.

Some. Some of the ones I have known really didn't give a shit. Some are just fucking clueless, just like a lot of diamond owners are clueless about blood diamonds.

The only way to stop narco-violence is to legalize drugs and end the bogus war on drugs.

True, but where is the demand for violence free certification? If I'm supposed to "step up" to deal with a problem I do not contribute to in any way, at the very least they should get their heads out of their asses and see where their money is going.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. CC has worked out extremely well in the dozens of states that have shall-issue.

We haven't seen rivers of blood flowing in the streets yet. Millions of people are carrying safely.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Blood doesn't flow in rivers

It flows in veins. What does millions carrying "safely" have to do with anything? Nobody cares about shootings that don't happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. I never claimed that blood did flow in rivers.

I merely referred to the claim of many anti-gunners that it would. The fact that millions of people do something in safety shows that the activity is not dangerous if done correctly, thereby refuting your claim that it is dangerous. And there is a safety benefit, that of being having the needed tool to resist violent crime. I have posted several times that my wife has used her concealed handgun twice to ward off imminent attack. As she, like me is a senior citizen, and is frail, I doubt she would have survived the attack. But you would be happier if she had not been armed and was just another crime statistic.

[Starboard Tack]

36. I am offended that you think I harbor ill will toward your wife.

You have mentioned many times that she has felt the need to be armed and I am glad that she is safe and that she had no need to shoot anyone.
Certain activities in life are inherently dangerous, like extreme sports. Carrying a gun is also an activity full of potential danger to oneself and to others. Unfortunately, it is deemed necessary at times, as in your wife's case and by police officers engaged in certain operations. Maybe even by women living in some parts of Detroit.
This is a sad aspect of our society, not something to cheer about.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. You're the one who wants to disarm her.

Therefore you must desire a different outcome of events than if she had been armed.

BTW - The business was a family business where she worked. She worked for her son-in-law and her son and daughter (Both were adults.) also worked there. He son was opposed to guns and tried to talk her out of being armed. After all she would be having her gun in the workplace after she got to work. He changed his opinion after the two incidents when faced with the fact that his recommendation would have resulted in his mother likely getting killed.

If you want someone disarmed then you must desire the outcome of them being disarmed.

[Starboard Tack]

51. I have never wanted to disarm anyone, especially your wife.

My dismay at the proliferation of concealed carry does not translate into disarming anyone. There are many vulnerable individuals who should be armed at times. I have no problem with that. If you fall into that category, you should follow your common sense. If, on the other hand, an individual has never had any indication of needing to carry a gun, why would they?
If my wife or daughter ever voiced concerns for their personal safety, I would suggest arming themselves. This actually happened about 25 years ago, when a suspected stalker/Peeping Tom was lurking outside our home when I was away on business. I had my brother-in-law bring over his 12 gauge, which gave them peace of mind.
I'm neither anti-gun, nor a disarmer. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. Taking extreme measures as a part of daily life baffles me.
Routine carry to me is like wearing a smog mask at the beach.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. You must have a really good crystal ball.

It is impossible to tell exactly when and where violent crime will strike.

[Starboard Tack]

57. No, I don't believe in crystal balls.

I find situational awareness works very well. Having never encountered violent crime where a gun might have helped, it really isn't an issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. You probably aren't a prime target.

Convicts in prisons have been shown videos of people in public settings and asked whom they would attack. The different convicts were extremely uniform in picking out their targets. You likely don't look like and easy mark so criminals don't bother with you.

[Starboard Tack]

70. That's correct and it's something I learned at a young age and it's very primal.

Never display weakness, even if you are scared shitless. Walk with confidence when facing possible confrontation. Never walk with your head down etc.. Navigating the world as if you own it and are afraid of nothing will work better than any weapon, IMO. That's what you learn as a cop in the UK. Self confidence trumps arrogance. Assertiveness trumps aggression. I also learned in school how to deal with bullies without ever having to lay a finger on them.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. That doesn't always work 100% of the time.

Those things are true and excellent and a first line of defense. But as you get older it will become increasingly difficult to pull it off. And if you are a woman it is more difficult to pull off.

Sometimes the situation itself will make you a target. For those times when it fails, the gun is a backup plan.

As you can see from my new thread, trained and armed citizens are not a threat to the public.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Of course. Nothing in life is guaranteed, including using a gun successfully for SD.

And you are right, as we get older, our ability to "pull it off" wanes somewhat. We adjust. Carrying a gun is one way to adjust. I prefer it not be my way. As yet, I have no thoughts in that direction. That could easily change, though I doubt it.
I spend so little time in places where crime ever happens, or is ever likely to happen, but even when I do, I don't present as a target. I present as "Nothing obvious worth taking and not worth the trouble finding out". No pockets bulging with money, wallet, gun or other valuables. I'll check out your new thread and respond there.

[TPaine7]

63. I am trying to understand your position, but you lose me at points.

First, let me agree with you. The fact that people sometimes need guns to protect themselves is sad. It is not a reasonable cause for celebration, in fact, it is proof of imperfections in our society. But so are courts, judges, juries, police officers, trials, lawsuits, and prisons.

But while needing guns isn't so great, having them when they are needed is an unqualified good. And while needing police, judges, juries and prisons is not a great thing, having them when needed is great. I, for one, am thrilled that many folks have been arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated.

You seem to think that everyone who is attacked gets a warning gut feeling. If only it were so. If your wife or daughter were attacked, there is no reason to believe that their attacker will give them a reason to think they are in danger. There is no reason to think that they will voice concerns for their personal safety to you, or even in their own heads before they are attacked.

If your wife and daughter are competent, level headed and knowledgeable, would it not be better for them to be armed thousands of days and not need the gun than to be unarmed one day when a gun could have been used to save their lives or physical integrity?

Only routine carry can protect a woman against unexpected threats. If a woman's male relatives and romantic interests aren't abusive, stalkers or the like, her threats are likely to be unexpected and opportunistic. If a woman isn't psychic, she won't think to herself one morning "I should carry a gun today because my car will have a flat and I will be accosted by a man intent on hurting me."

[Starboard Tack]

75. OK, I'll attempt to explain my position.

The only legitimate reason to carry a handgun would be for self defense. Correct?
If I felt my home needed defending with a firearm, I would choose a shotgun every time, but I accept that others may prefer a handgun.

Carrying a weapon outside the home is such an extreme action, that I could never consider it based on the current odds of ever needing one. By not carrying one, I can rest assured that it will not be stolen, will not be used to kill me or another and will not be the cause of an accidental shooting. The responsibility of carrying the gun and inherent stress would far outweigh any advantage it might give me. In fact, I would consider it a distraction from seeking less violent alternatives.
It isn't that my life isn't worth defending, I value it immensely. But, if I were to take the life of another, except in the rarest of rare circumstances, my life would decrease in value to the point where I would have to question what I was defending in the first place. The odds of my being attacked are incredibly remote. I know that doesn't apply to all. I have lived in places where the odds were much higher. Very high indeed. But I never felt that a gun would have resolved anything. On the contrary.
I care more about who I have to face in the mirror each morning, not whom I might encounter in the street.

[TPaine7]

78. Now I not only understand, I actually respect your personal reasoning.

As I read it, the probability of your needing to defend yourself does not justify the risk to you on a personal, ethical (I am tempted to say spiritual) level. Not that you are a pacifist, but that the situations that would justify potentially deadly force are so remote in your calculus that they are outweighed by the potential for harm.

I too hope for a world where more people will land where you are of their own free will when they consider the low crime rates, the social justice and the harmony that surround them.

It seems to me, when reading your posts, that you are unusually gifted at de-escalation, avoidance and persuading people to leave you alone. It is a common mistake of gifted people to assume that they are less gifted than they are--that others can do what they do, or could if they really tried. You may overestimate others' abilities.

I also have a question. Are you good at persuading others to leave people you don't know alone? Do you think you could persuade someone to stop attacking a stranger?

There are people who would be haunted because they didn't threaten (or if necessary, use) deadly force. There are people, who if they saw, for example, a child being harmed by a person they had no chance of stopping through physical force, would kick themselves for leaving the gun at home. I know these are rare and extreme cases, but I should hope that the elderly janitor who walked in on a boy being raped by a coach would have been prepared to shoot if necessary to stop that atrocity.

Both witnessing a crime that justifies potentially deadly force and misusing a gun to cause an unjustified death are extremely rare; we have to decide individually which one is more likely for us, and the relative benefits and risks of carrying.

[Starboard Tack]

79. Thank you for both a thoughtful and respectful response.

I also have a question. Are you good at persuading others to leave people you don't know alone? Do you think you could persuade someone to stop attacking a stranger?

Simple answer, yes. It has happened many times in my life and is one of the reasons I am glad I was not armed. I am certainly no hero, but I do tend to be a rescuer, by nature. If I can do it without a gun, why raise the ante and risk a situation I wouldn't want to live with.

[armueller2001]

39. I think refusing to take personal responsibility

for one's security and the security of their family is "highly irresponsible", as is expecting the police to protect against all threats at all times.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Couldn't agree more

[gejohnston]

14. that is the best description of the corporate media

I have read yet. Then people wonder why I rely on Stratfor, BBC, NPR, and almost none of the rest.


UK gun laws suck, but the beer is great.

[Starboard Tack]

17. Interesting. You have good taste.

Many Americans think UK beer sucks, considering it warm. UK gun laws may well suck, but they are good for the UK. Cultural relativism at work.
I listen to NPR, mainly watch PBS, BBC and Al Jazeera, and once or twice a week we watch RT News, DT (German), France 24 News and South Asia Newsline.

[eqfan592]

41. "UK gun laws may well suck, but they are good for the UK."

That's arguable at best. But it's their choice to support a government that allows it in the first place, and if that's what they want, then more power too them, I guess.

[Starboard Tack]

45. It really isn't arguable in the UK

The government does what the people want. It's called representative democracy. The people insisted that the police not be armed from the get go. Weapons of war belong on the battlefield, not the streets. Interesting concept, isn't it? Plus, it has stood the test of time. We might learn something one day from those who went before us.

[eqfan592]

67. It is completely arguable.

Simply because a nation elects to take an action does not automatically mean that action is actually good for the nation, which was the point I was making. As for learning from those who went before, I think we have, tho I don't think we agree on the lessons learned from their system.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Of course it is arguable in the sense that anything is arguable.

You won't find much argument happening in favor of an armed populace though. And the reason for that is not because of government oppression, but rather public consensus.
There are many things each nation has learned from the other and much they still have to learn. Some good, some bad. On the issue of public safety, public transportation and healthcare, the UK is way ahead.

[gejohnston]

74. on public safety,

I would say UK is way behind most of Europe and about half of the US.