Gun con-troll

“Deer hunting is not what "Militia" usually brings to mind.”

“Wow. We agree on something!”

“It happens reasonably often. It's just that the disagreements generate more sparks.”

“In case you've missed it in the Canada thread:


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/150547.shtml?s=ic

Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 2:59 p.m. EST

Canada's Crime Rate 50 % Higher than U.S.



Press reports that Canada is a Shangri-la – an America with free health care and less crime – may be short sighted.

In fact, statistics show that the violent crime rate there is double that of the United States.

It seems Canada is looking for a scapegoat, too: Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is blaming the United States for his country’s violent crime wave. He says his southern neighbor is eagerly bringing guns over the border.

According to the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb, writing in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Martin is wrong for blaming Canada’s rise in violent crime on criminals smuggling guns from the United States.


Gottlieb says the blame instead belongs on Canadian crooks getting guns from wherever they can.

"Blaming the United States for Canadian crime is an argument that does not pass the smell test,” Gottlieb wrote. "Canada's experience has simply demonstrated that no matter what kind of gun control law a government passes, that law is doomed to failure because instead of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, the law disarms the wrong people. Canada's gun control scheme has not just failed - it has failed disastrously. Clear evidence of that can be found in a comparison of the crime rates for Canada and America.”

Gottlieb cites an article by Canada's National Post columnist David Frum where he revealed that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States.” Moreover, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80 percent of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada’s 10 biggest cities.”

He also cites the most recent complete data available from both countries that shows that in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.

Moreover, he cites research that showed the figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was more than twice that of the United States: 746 to America’s 295. Also, in 2005, Toronto had 78 murders; that’s a 28 percent increase in homicides since 1995.


"The situation hasn't improved for Canada; it has here,” he wrote.

"Moreover, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted ‘right-to-carry’ and ‘shall-issue’ handgun laws. During the same period, Canada’s gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry being implemented,” he added.

"Since declaring war on guns under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation’s history.”

Gottlieb wrote that "Frum put it best when he claimed, ‘Gun registration and gun bans ... do not work,’ adding later: ‘It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals.’”

Martin and the Liberals are not the solution to violent crime in Canada, Gottlieb wrote. "They're the problem.”

Gottlieb concluded that "the disparity in crime rates says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fighting back if necessary.”””

“*Insert Y2's obligatory but-we-can't-compare-the-two-countries copout here*
last edited: 1/24/06 4:24:35 PM”

“Go suck treebeard's #*$@!


Hawhaw!”

“The Canada story seems whacked and slanted. Reports of crime and violent crime in Canada have always always been way higher in Canada. This might be because of better reporting. The murder rate has been and remains less than half of what it is in the U.S. Of course the murder rate is most relevant when you are talking about the availability of lethal weapons. It is also the most reliably reported because the bodies have to be counted”

“That slanted silliness about Canada and gun control made me look at US murder trends. I just learned tha the murder rate was cut by more than 40% during the Clinton Presidency. That's amazing! I would have trumpeted that if I was a Democratic pol.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm”

“Sorry that you missed this bit of today's news, Mutt:


http://www.komotv.com/stories/41475.htm

Murderous Americans with guns heading for Canada.”

“Police: Girl Shot, Wounded at Md. Day Care

By STEPHEN MANNING
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; 11:00 PM

GERMANTOWN, Md. -- A 7-year-old girl was shot in the arm at a day-care center Tuesday after an 8-year-old classmate brought in one of his father's guns and it accidentally went off, authorities said.

The father was arrested for gun offenses, and court documents outlined an extensive criminal record. The boy also was charged, but authorities said that was done only so he could be helped by juvenile author

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012400422.html?referrer=emailarticle
last edited: 1/25/06 12:39:56 AM”

“Sarge, please help me to understand what the constitution has to do with anything on this thread?”

“I can't help you to understand, but I can point you to the post that mine referred to and you can give it the old college try.

What about my right to keep and bear these kewl arms?
pedxing
7:16:45 PM
1/22/06”

“The guys from USA's article.

Here are the "murderous Americans" ...

”

“Murderous Americans with guns heading for Canada.

LOL - did you even read the article?”

“The Canada story seems whacked and slanted. Reports of crime and violent crime in Canada have always always been way higher in Canada. This might be because of better reporting.

filling in for y2, pdexing?”

“What I was referring to is that the second amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights. I recall reading nothing in the Constitution about keeping or bearing arms. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you 100% on this issue, if I understand your position correctly.”

“Sarge, I just did a little more reading. I guess although the first ten amendments are known as the "Bill of Rights", you are correct, they are amendments to the constitution. I never claimed to be a political scholar. I learn something new from someone every day.”

“That's cool hobbit. I learn something from Crash Bang every day, so I know how you feel. Living in Utah you probably didn't visit Philadelphia and Washington DC (good for getting astronaut ice-cream) umpteen times on school field trips, so you have a good excuse!

U.S. Constitution”

“Boy Killed, Youth Charged in Roulette Game

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; B08

A Northeast Washington teenager has been arrested and charged in the shooting death of a 13-year-old friend during a game of Russian roulette last week, D.C. police said.

The 15-year-old suspect, whose name was not released because of his age, is accused of killing Isaiah Patterson in the 5100 block of Just Street NE about 11 a.m. Jan. 18, police said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602187_pf.html”

“Gun-Toting Delegate Misfires at Va. Capitol

By Chris L. Jenkins and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 27, 2006; A01



RICHMOND, Jan. 26 -- Del. John S. "Jack" Reid had gone through this morning routine dozens of times. He'd reach into his pocket, pull out his small semiautomatic .380 handgun, release the clip and store the weapon safely in the desk drawer of his office on the seventh floor of the Virginia General Assembly Building.

But something went wrong Thursday. Reid's pistol, which he said he carries for protection, fired as he popped the clip from the handle, sending a single bullet into the cushion of a bulletproof vest that was hanging from the back of his closed office door

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601129_pf.html”

“SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; B01



Salvatore J. Culosi Sr. still can't believe his son, a 37-year-old optometrist, was a suspected sports bookie. He can't believe a heavily armed SWAT team fatally shot his unarmed son, Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., outside his Fair Oaks home Tuesday night.

And Culosi can't believe that the SWAT team's sudden descent on his son, apparently causing one officer to accidentally fire a .45-caliber handgun once into his son's chest, is standard procedure for Fairfax County police conducting a search.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602136_pf.html”

“Interesting article that seeks to explain the fear of guns in people like Y2/Tilt/Violin:

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.

Continued here”

“Come on Mutt, that's not even a good read. Talk about reaching.

Maybe it's you with the Freudian projection of your own fears.

I think it's far more likely your trying to rationalize your own fear of life and death. To desperately try and impose some control. Come to terms with your own mortality and you can actually go out and live your life without the artifical prop that's your gun.


This was an interesting read.

Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

Mutt seeking to project his own fear of life into a fear of guns in others.


"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

No more needed to be said.


"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

Mutt's afraid so use the proejection to make it other people that have a fear of guns.


"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

Mutt denies he lives his life in fear.


"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
It's not Mutt that's scared - it's other people who are scared.


"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

The article seeks to accuse those who would like better control of guns as possessing the unpleasant feeling (fear) they themselves have about crime and living life in general, when in reality it places undue emphasis on crime itself, revealing more about the author's own fear than that of the guy who wrote the letter.”

“I must have touched a nerve!”

“Not really mutt, I was bored.”

“I mean in reality, I'm not sure with the rabid gun advocates, you know, an assault weapon under every pillow types - like yourself - whether it's a fear of life, or an overwhelming fear of not being in control of a situation. The gun acting to give you this false sence of control over any situation you might find yourself in.
last edited: 2/24/06 3:07:07 PM”

“Did anybody ever notice Y2 spends his time on TT making fun of people on fuego instead of discussing the issues? Look at his past posts. He always makes it about the other person instead of the issue. Speaking of "false sence(sic) of control."”

“It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people.

You see, there's a valid reason to be concerned about personal safety.”

“It's not an irrational fear, like that of hoplophobes.”

“So what's the crime rate like where you live Mutt?”

“Shush now Lambchop - grown-ups are talking.”

“I live in the Meth capital of the country. Draw your own conclusions.”

“Shush now Lambchop - grown-ups are talking

See!”

“Y2, if not having a gun is so safe put a sign that says "NO GUNS IN HOUSE>...WE WILL NOT SUPPORT VIOLENCE. in your front yard (LOL)”

“658 Murders of Americans.....in a place much smaller than the country of Iraq. Yes Iraq is the size of California but just in LA 658 Murders in 2004 alone....GET AMERICA OUT!!! How many more Americans must be killed!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3771411.stm”

“what's your point XL?
last edited: 2/24/06 4:30:00 PM”

“If things are so bad you need a gun, how many people have you shot trying to get into your house?”

“My dog was of more use recently than my handgun when I caught an intruder in my yard late one night.

I am, however, glad to be able to have both :)”

“Whats wrong with having the choice to own a gun or not. I personally don't own any guns right now but I have in the past and have for most of my life.I chose to get rid of my guns when I had a child and I didn't want any accidents to happen.Now I am considering restocking my cabinet not to mention guns are great family heirlooms. I will be getting a few of my dads guns when my decides how to devide them between me and my siblings.”

“The only freedoms some people love are the ones they see as important. Taking mutt's guns is fine but try and take their girlfriend's abortion? NEVER!”

“Interesting statement, Nigal. Honestly. Let me mull that one over while I get another drink......”

“Good point, nigal! Although I'm sure the Dhimmi rebuttal would be that one is an individual's right to privacy while the other was never meant to be a personal right (I mean come on - we already have a militia - the national guard!).”

“Of course mutt, that's why I avoid being the hypocrit and I stand up for their right to an abortion even though I don't agree with it. But will they do the same for mio?

Of course not. They aren't interested in real freedom. They want agendas.”

“If Y2 lives in DC its a moot point because guns are illegal. No one ever gets shot in DC but some how its made the top 2 in murder rates for years.”

“This is funny. First off, the article Mutt gives provides odd stereoptyped statements I've never heard. None of those things are things gun control advocates say, not even gun ban people say them much at all. Secondly he Mutt looks for analysis from another lunatic source full of articles like "THE LEFTIST ROGUE WEASELS OF THE CIA

"http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/178/3919/2006-02-24.asp?nid=3919&wid=178"”

“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213667,00.html

Isn't Montreal on Canada?”

“Yep....serves them right A LSH in their country punks their kids...LOL”

“D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out
Fenty Promises to Fight Appellate Court's Ruling

By David Nakamura and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 10, 2007; A01

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District's longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.

The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls, because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's language on the right to bear arms.

The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years.

The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack over the past three decades in Congress and in courts. Yesterday's ruling guts key parts of the law but does not address provisions that effectively bar private citizens from carrying guns outside the home.

More:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416_pf.html
last edited: 3/10/07 2:10:24 PM”

“Still no progress on that 'taxation without representation' thing....”

“Wow! This is a great victory for individual rights! Nice to know the poor of DC will finally be able to defend themselves now.”