Crime Strike TV
I was flipping through channels today and happened to come upon a show with a woman being robbed at an ATM machine and subsequently kicking the guy in the balls until he fled. As she kicked him, her voice-over described how she had learned to defend herself in a class while working at a convenience store. She stated that if she had not fought back, she believes she would have been harmed or killed. She did not apologize or look frightened--she just stated what happened. At first, I was taken aback by a TV show that actually advocated fighting back as a way to avoid getting harmed: Most primetime shows usually show someone just acting scared, giving in, or feeling remorseful that they had to hurt someone.
However, I realized that I should not have been surprised by the positive portrayal of self-defense when I saw it was hosted by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association. The show, CrimeStrike "focuses on the people who have made life or death decisions that have ultimately put criminals behind bars. Crime Strike fills in the details where Cops and America's Most Wanted Fail." In a time when pantywaists like the UN try to say that self-defense is not a human right, it is refreshing to see that TV shows like Crime Strike realize that self-defense is the ultimate human right.
Take a look at the website--there is some good video of people defending themselves with weapons and it reflects guns and self-defense in a positive light. It's about time.
However, I realized that I should not have been surprised by the positive portrayal of self-defense when I saw it was hosted by Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association. The show, CrimeStrike "focuses on the people who have made life or death decisions that have ultimately put criminals behind bars. Crime Strike fills in the details where Cops and America's Most Wanted Fail." In a time when pantywaists like the UN try to say that self-defense is not a human right, it is refreshing to see that TV shows like Crime Strike realize that self-defense is the ultimate human right.
Take a look at the website--there is some good video of people defending themselves with weapons and it reflects guns and self-defense in a positive light. It's about time.
posted by Helen at 5:20 PM
62 Comments:
This is rather different since, it seems, the universal feeling of the government and the left is to "not resist" and be a victim. The hell with that.
Then you'll also like Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.
If I recall not resisting was what they told airline crews to do before 9/11 and you see how well that worked out
Now THAT is what I call "empowerment."
Bravo!
...kicking the guy in the balls until he fled.
Did they play that hilarious "boing" sound each time she kicked him?
This is the difference between living in a densely populated ("urban") area or not. In a densely populated area, guns are a liability on the whole, because one guy with a gun can threaten thousands. He doesn't have to kill that many, he only has to kill a couple of them to disrupt the fabric of life and invoke fear.
A good example of this was 9/11. Only a very small segment of the Manhattan area died in the attack, but it gripped the entire city in fear, for months. People who had no contact with the attacks could not go about their daily business. (Conversely, this is also why the earlier bomb-in-a-van attack on the WTC was not taken seriously at all, and why terrorism is once again a non-issue for many New Yorkers. The reality of our vulnerability is too grim to contemplate.)
In non-urban areas, and even in some less-populated cities, guns are seen as self-defense. This is because, unlike the New Yorker, life is less about relationships and connections and more about self-reliance. (There are, after all, fewer people to rely upon.) Therefore, self-protection is everyone's business.
As many Western pioneer towns grew, proud gun-toters often were asked to 'check their gun' when they came into town. The balance shifts itoward 'gun control' when there are greater numbers of people involved.
New Yorkers (and Bostonians, etc.) want national gun control mainly because they figure those guns will find their way to them, and the sherriff can't check all visitors' guns any more. Of course, the sad fact is that even with national gun control, guns, like drugs, will still find a way into the wrong hands (something the NRA is quick to point out).
Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter. The rest of the country lives in 'fly-over' states. The flown-over notice the disrespect, and refuse to consider the New Yorker's POV.
And so it goes.
I'm a liberal and you better believe I am gonna resist. No victimization here, if someone messes with me or my family, I am gonna defend myself. There are plenty of liberals that own guns, so let's stop the stereotypes.
Dear Liberal,
While I applaud your stance on self-defense, and agree that too many conservative stereotype libs, let's be honest - if liberal ideology ruled the state houses and Congress, your 'self defense' would be a limited judge's restraining order, a candlelight vigil, and an idictment (if you actually pulled a gun.
I'm all for busting stereotypes, but if you persist in being as rational as you appear, it won't be long before your liberal bretheren frog-march you off their plantation.
Anonymous, you have no justification for your self-righteous stance (although you don't strike me as someone who would be stopped by that). Fact is, the majority of 'liberal' (leftist) voters want gun control, PERIOD. It's not stereotypical, it's just the fact. Why someone wants to come here and argue just for the sake of arguing is beyond me.
A drop kick in the eye for the UN. I watched westerns all day. It made me just feel right. Self defence is a right.
mr. snitch-
This is the difference between living in a densely populated ("urban") area or not. In a densely populated area, guns are a liability on the whole, because one guy with a gun can threaten thousands. He doesn't have to kill that many, he only has to kill a couple of them to disrupt the fabric of life and invoke fear.
There tends to be concentrations of crime in urban areas, and that includes black market gun sales. So preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns does nothing to prevent criminals, who don't follow laws anyway, from acquiring guns. You are also making helpless an already vulnerable law-abiding population.
This is because, unlike the New Yorker, life is less about relationships and connections and more about self-reliance.
What do you mean by this? How do "relationships and connections" make up for being defenseless in a high-crime area?
As many Western pioneer towns grew, proud gun-toters often were asked to 'check their gun' when they came into town. The balance shifts itoward 'gun control' when there are greater numbers of people involved.
The "check your gun" was also during a time when a small group of law enforcement personnel could monitor the comings and goings and activities of nearly everyone. And it was during a time of a lot of general lawlessness. As numbers increased even more things migrated back toward less gun control. So your premise and conclusion are false.
New Yorkers (and Bostonians, etc.) want national gun control mainly because they figure those guns will find their way to them, and the sherriff can't check all visitors' guns any more. Of course, the sad fact is that even with national gun control, guns, like drugs, will still find a way into the wrong hands (something the NRA is quick to point out).
And the NRA is right to point this out. You make your population less safe by disarming law-abiding citizens. And what's even more ironic is that even if the urban gun control advocates were able to confiscate all the guns from other areas, the illegal gun markets in their own backyards would still be there.
Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter. The rest of the country lives in 'fly-over' states. The flown-over notice the disrespect, and refuse to consider the New Yorker's POV.
It's not so much considering the New Yorker's point of view - it's that the New Yorker's point of view is very naive and mistaken. Confiscate guns from the law-abiding and you still have illegal gun markets - in fact they grow larger and more profitable. You just make an already vulnerable population in a high crime area even more valuable.
Typo - last word in the post just above should be "vulnerable".
Two points:
First, I don't understand why banks haven't been sued to hell and back for ATMs on the outside. Surely "attractive nuisance" laws or a general failure to provide security in an area they can reasonably be expected to know will endanger people would have flocks of lawyers out for a slice of the pie? Why aren't folks who are robbed and/or injured at ATMs -- and their shyster lawyers -- suing like gangbusters?
Second, I know why police and other criminal-control types don't advocate resistance. It makes their job harder! They want folks to be trained to be submissive when confronted by weapons and demands to comply.
And, if someone follows the advice of an organisation to "fight back," there is the chance that they get injured or killed. There can then be a lawsuit against that organisation seeking damages for harmful advice!
Fear of lawyers. There you go.
I also support the right of people to practice self-defense and for many, the use of a firearm is the most practical and efficient self-defense tool. But . . . in our rule-of-law-and-laywers society, we must not forget that even when someone is morally justified in using a gun, there are very, very serious potential liabilities.
When I took the required class for a concealed weapon permit, we were shown a great DVD which explains not only when you can legally use a gun in self defense but also how the police and the D.A. are going to evaluate your situation. I bought my own copy and have watched it a few more times: "Deadly Force: Fireams, Self Defense & The Law". I got it from www.projectile.com
I'm amused by the comments praising gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens," and how it protects us on the streets.
Why do I then read of so many tragic incidents where people are killed by "law abiding citizens" and their guns who flip out and shoot up their workplaces or lay in wait for their ex-spouses at courthouses, or who go on rampages shooting children at McDonalds or Philipino postmen walking their rounds?
These so-called "law abiding citizens" are only law abiding until they flip out and kill someone.
Frankly, if I were being mugged on a city street, the last thing I'd want would be some macho asshole walking down the sidewalk pulling out his concealed weapon and blasting away in my direction.
the sad truth is that most of the time the only people getting killed with homeowners guns are homeowners kids.
I want to address Mike's comment. If I, a person of free-will feel that it is safe to use a bank machine at 2:00 A.M. why on earth would that be the bank's fault?"
Great point. I'm not in an urban area all that often (in the 'burbs, we have well-lighted, drive-up ATM's at most branches of my bank, or one can go inside a grocery store to use one as well), but if I am, and I have to use an ATM, I won't do so unless a friend who "has my back" is standing behind me. It's all about common sense...
Wow. A psychologist who champions self-defense!
I watching reruns of Homicide-Life on the Street, and finding Kay Howard pretty hot. Then there's Jordan Cavanaugh.
My favorite was the Hardy bit: "A report (pdf format) submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, whatever that is." I love a guy who can be proud of being ignorant, don't you?
Looks like Greg Kuperberg is back, anonymously!
To Linda M2:
I'm extremely interested in the manner in which law enforcement personnel and the DA Office will evaluate my self-defense actions - both with a gun and with any other weapon.
Can you provide a summary of the key points so I can know whether or not it will be worth it to purchase a video that provides more detail?
For example, if I wake up hearing someone breaking into my home, are there any constraints on how I defend myself and repel the invader? Also, what are the constraints on defending someone else on the street who is suffering an assault?
You give no indication of the implied threat this woman was reacting to. You give no information about the alleged robber, except that he was male. You give us no information about the alleged victim, except that she reacted violently. You give us no information about the statistical likelyhood that what she did was inherently dangerous, even deadly (i.e. suicidal). You give no indication that what the UN actually said is there is no human right to use firearms as self defense.
In other words, through omission and commission YOU LIED. Wayne LaPierre would be proud.
JoeBob
At the top of page 9 of the report you linked to, is section 20. Which says in part, "Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation."
So actually you're nit-picking between "no human right" and "inadequate legal support for it to be a right". A distiction without a practical difference.
I see it this way.....Whether the UN decides I have the right to defend myself with a firearm is irrelevant. If some idiot comes into my house in the middle of the night, he KNOWS he is not in his house. He KNOWS he isn't supposed to be there. So I'll shoot the bastard. It will give the other idiots food for thought.....
And Kofi can kiss my ass.
Per the UN Report:
Doesn't look as though you read it. Or, if you read it, you mischaracterized it. It doesn't say that self-defense is not a right. It says that states should implement gun control. Essentially, what it's advocating is what most Americans already advocate and what was advocated by political theorists like Max Weber (i.e., the state survives to the degree it monopolizes licit violence).
I'm not sticking around to argue the theoretical points of whether or not there should be gun control. My point is more about reading comprehension and bad faith characterization to uphold prejudices, as it's always been strange to me to see rightwing grousing about the UN's interventionalism in internal state affairs combined with rightwing enthusiasm for so-called 'regime change,' so long as it's not regime change in US allies (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, chief among them).
Love it. Love it.
Specially the guy who's gone all tingly because of the way you look and the fact that you use the word "balls".
Guns, guns, guns. Love it. Love saying it, love holding one, love pulling the . . . ah, christ - too much.
Anonymous (can't you even come up with a temp name?) said:
"What do you mean by this? How do "relationships and connections" make up for being defenseless in a high-crime area?"
Your basic connection is wrong: Relationships don't 'make up for' being defenseless. Relationships are considered the defense. Densely-packed urban dwellers think differenetly than those who live in less densely populated areas. In fact, if you were to take New Yorkers and transplant them en masse to, say, New Mexico, and the reverse, you'd eventually begin to see a change in philosophy. Not complete, of course, but you'd see the shift. And note that the basic prevailing 'liberal' (leftist) approach and more conservative approach associated with these geographic areas does not change much over time. The situation/environment affects behavior, although few hard-core urbanites can bring themselves to acknowledge how the presence of so many others affects them, and how dependent they really are.
What's the suburban dweller's first instinct? I must take care of this situation. What's the urban dweller's first instinct? Someone [else whose responsibility this is, maybe a cop or a Guardian Angel or a good Samaritan] should do something about this situation.
A gun is a considerable responsibility. So is self-defense. It's not surprising, if you study urban behavior, that urbanites want to lay these responsibilities at someone else's feet. Subruban dwellers are not necessarily more noble, but they are at least resigned to the need for more self-reliance. Some grow into their responsibilities.
Turn back the clock, place Helen at age 8 or so in New York or Boston to be raised there, and you have a very different person with different views today. (Not that anyone wants THAT.)
"check your gun"... A numbers increased even more things migrated back toward less gun control. So your premise and conclusion are false.
It's a fair observation up to a point. Towns that never became truly urban eventually saw some relaxation of the rules (besides, as you say, the sherrif couldn't pragmatically disarm an entire town, forever). However, my point is that under certain circumstances people will lay down their right to bear arms. Those circumstances exist today in urban areas, and those inhabitants believe that the world would be better off following their lead. As I have said, they do not understand the roots of their own behavior, and they are wrong. Not that merely wrong never stopped anyone from believing they are right.
In responsible self-defense and martial arts programs, one of the first things they teach you if you find yourself in a situation in which you are being threatened -- especially if the person threatening you has a knife or other weapon -- is to put up your hands (inf front of you, prepared to defend or attack), and shout "I don't want to fight!" . And then , scream and run. It might not be as macho as Dr.Helen or Wayne would like it to be, but the point is to get yourself out of a life threatening situation -- and the best way to do that is to flee!
Actually engaging in hand to hand combat must be the absolute last resort in any situation. Advocacy or celebration of any other kind of response to a threatening situation is irresponsible.
Dr Helen's "CrimeStrike TV" is a very foolish post -- a celebration of gunplay, a gratuitous swipe at "the un" -- I must wonder if she really was just "flipping through channels" and "happened to come upon" this show - it is more likely that she got a promo email from big Wayne himself and went with it.
Also, the crimestrike website is crap -- looks like the show has even worse production values than cops if that is possible.
I don't consider myself a "liberal," but I'm no fan of the NRA either.
What I don't like are the phony arguments the NRA makes. I own two guns, neither being a handgun. Here in Texas, I can walk into any sporting goods store and buy a rifle or a shotgun, on the spot, without a background check, thus nullifying the false NRA argument that I can't defend my home if I have to wait 7 (pick a number) days for a background check. I'll take a 5 shot, semi-automatic 12 guage over a pistol any day.
Break into my home and see what good your pistol is against dozens of flying buckshot.
I don't believe people should be able to buy bullets that pierce kevlar vests, etc., ad infinitum (re: NRA's platform).
Is it too much to ask that arguments/positions are logical and reasonable?
And by the way, why are you all getting your panties in a wad over anything the UN does or says? The US has always supported the UN when it agrees with it, and ignored the UN when it doesn't agree with it. This is just another phony/empty issue to get people stirred up, and judging by the posts here, "Mission Accomplished!"
put up your hands (inf front of you, prepared to defend or attack), and shout "I don't want to fight!" . And then , scream and run.
This, of course, assumes there is a place to run, that your assailant (and his comrade?) does not have you cornered. It also assumes that you're willing to take a chance of being shot while fleeing. Even handing over your wallet/purse assures you of nothing. Example: Jersey City, like a number of cities, is currently in the grip of gang initiations, in which the goal is to harm or kill some innocent civilian. Not to rob them, which is incidental, but to cause harm or death.
Fighting back has to be considered as a legitimate option, as logical as any other. Having the means to defend oneself and being well-prepared to use it is not so blithely dismissed as 'anonymous' claims. If a certain percentage of the citizenry is prepared to fight back, that's a terrific deterrent to crime. If, however, victims ALL run away, as 'anonymous' says they must, assailants merely learn to prevent that. If they ALL scream, they may get their jaws broken immediately. But if potential victims pull out a gun instead of a wallet, that gives cause for pause. In every other scenario, where the victim simply leaves, where exactly is the deterrent to violent crime?
This was noted in recent years, during which police and the FBI had advised bank tellers to simply hand over their money when threatened with robbery. This became official policy in many banks, especially in New York City. Well, this got around, and guess what - NYC bank robberies soared. I mean, through the roof. (This was noted in the New York Times.) Finally, new policies were instituted that presented would-be robbers with more resistance.
I must wonder if she really was just "flipping through channels" and "happened to come upon" this show - it is more likely that she got a promo email from big Wayne himself and went with it.
Still more assumptions, leading to increasingly nasty accusations, based on even less factual evidence than the rest of this one's argument. Not even worth acknowledging, really.
I am a liberal, why do people automaticly assume that because your a liberal your a pansy? If I were attacked I would more than likely have to give the guy a beat down, weight lifting does come in handy. Also, the way I see it, if liberals controlled the house and senate there would be less violent situations in the first place. This is because people would actually get rehabilatated and their would be a good economy so people would'nt have a reason to steal.
Why is it that people automaticly assume that liberals are pansies? If i were assaulted I would more than likely have to give the guy a beat down, weight lifting comes in handy. Most people would be afraid if they had a gun, I would be scared too but I know that alot of people who carry them are not willing to use them. Also, if liberals controlled the senate and house there would be no need for such violence. Sick people would more than likely be rehibilatated and with the great economy sure to follow, noone would need to steal form others. Unlike the economy and mindset under this administration and the republican party.
Whoops... sorry for the double post, my internet got messed up and I wasn't sure if it went through.
It is good to see that self defense is no longer verboten. Hollywood has become enamored with society as victim and only the "proper" authority can act to save the victims. Only the police can come to the rescue of the crime victim, only the lifeguard can save the drowning swimmer. And yet when push comes to shove the "proper" authority fails in their duty. Not from lack of diligence but from lack of presence. In the end, the only people who truly cares whether you live or die is you and yours and you must be able to fend for yourself until the "proper" authorities arrive, whether that be the police responding to crime or FEMA responding to disaster.
That being said, it is preparation that allows a measured response. An individual trained in self-defense will have the skills and confidence to match the threat. They can run and scream, maneuver and strike or, if armed, draw and engage depending on the situation. It is the untrained who are dangerous as they react out of fear. In contrast to the common misperception, most incidents where an individual with a carry permit intercede where someone has "flipped out" such as a recent store clerk stabbing and chasing people from the store, they do not draw and start firing. In actuality, they held the murder at bay until the "proper" authorities arrived. In the incident described, those running and screaming would only have ended up dead in the parking lot without the CCW permit holder.
Hollywood is in love with the society as victim story line. It fits the literary hero premise and increases the drama. I recently downloaded a commercial where a sexy woman is home alone when the phone rings. It's a stalker who then cuts the power. She calls the police who will be there in a few minutes. "I don't have a few minutes" she replies while a knife is dragged over the bricks outside. The stalker appears outside the French doors trying to get in. At the height of tension, she opens up on the stalker. A voice over informs us, that horror movies don't have to last 2 hours.
Victims make good drama but do you really need that much drama in your life?
Unfortunately, New Yorkers (San Franciscans, etc.) think they are the only ones who matter.
As a San Franciscan, I have to protest--this is completely wrong.
We don't think New Yorkers matter.
LaPierre also stands up for any citizen's right to hunt kindergarteners with a machine gun -- as happened in California not so long ago.
Guess he didn't have videotape of that to show, eh?
There's probably a middle way, but you won't find it through the NRA.
"We don't think New Yorkers matter."
Well, poor phrasing on my part. I stand corrected.
I'm disturbed that a self-described Forensic Psychologist is so willing to 1)manufacture straw man arguments to support 2)factless stereotypes (wimpy liberals-see Bartcop.com for liberals with plenty of guns) and 3) paranoid delusions about the UN and faceless "statists" as well as 4) nod-and-wink racism (urban is a codeword for n#%#*!, is it not?). I hope you are not an officer of the court, although it would not surprise me.
The stereotypical "liberal" you and your coterie of internet warriors rail against is a bizarre mental construct not unlike the Boogeyman. Think for a minute-the liberal you are afraid controls your government is simultaneously powerless (passive, pacifist) and yet powerful enough to control your very life. What this tells me is that here we have a batch of people locked into fear, isolation, and a self-reinforcing social group (mob, if you will) whipping each other into a frenzy of irrational paranoia. Ann Coulter, for example, loves to point out who is a liberal in her mind that day and then propose that someone (never her; important people don't get their hands dirty) should shoot, stab, poison, or bomb them.
The UN is likewise pretty powerless, and it is ironic that Southerner Ted Turner paid the United States' back dues some years ago. We OWN the UN, pretty much, and the bizarre theories about what it does and how it goes about it are the same fear-mongering paranoia that set pitchfork and torch bearing mobs to burning witches. Of course it supports dictators because the US prefers dictators and always has. Try reading a Joseph Conrad novel. Kermit Roosevelt (secret agent man, not frog muppet) et al make no bones about this aspect of our national policy through decades of both parties' governments. We made Saddam, we made Osama, we support the Saudi Royal Family, all the right wing murderers in Central America. We have had no problem as a nation interfering in the elections of allies like Canada, Australia, Britain, Italy, and Greece. We as a nation make the monsters that bite us; it is our unwillingness as citizens to see this fact rationally that makes this state of affairs go on (e.g. the myth of American exceptionalism).
Liberal has as its root the word liber-latin for free. Our nation was founded by liberals for liberal people. If you hate liberalism, you hate freedom, pure and simple. Freedom requires accountability of its citizenry, which is why the current right wing coalition hates it so much. Authoritarians hate freedom and prefer license-allowing the wealthy and well connected access to endless free passes for bad behavior, like deserting the National Guard, accepting bribes, or losing 9 billion dollars in cash in the course of fighting a war based on a cloud of lies, fearmongering, and personal fortune building.
Liberal government requires fearless, informed, and rational citizenry. Your fear and paranoia keeps you from joining your neighbors to fix our democracy because they might be the Boogeyman. Your fear perpetuates injustice by demanding obedience to your protectors. Your fears keep them in power, whatever their political label. Your fears rule you whether you are armed or not, as your posters gripe about the liberal courts imprisoning them for self-defense, in effect hamstringing your ball kicker or thug shooter. Your irrational fear neutralizes you as a citizen and therefore your freedom has already been surrendered.
Good grief. I'm a great big "pantywaist" liberal and I also head up the local Glock club (Glocks Rock!). I'm pretty sure that I've got bragging rights on having more lead in my bloodstream than just about anyone here (my wife and I practically live at Front Sight during our vacations). But I loves me some liberal values! I also love the pantywaist U.N. (who, for the moment, are keeping me from being drafted into fighting yet another war on Israel's behalf). I'm not quite sure where I fit into the conservative (are you guys still calling yourselves that?) idea of liberals but the last thing I would flinch from is self-defense. All the same, I think that criminals are sick people who need treatment (which ought to be paid for by the taxation of a civil society...geez, you look like I just kicked you in the balls!). That, of course, wouldn't stop me from damaging someone who is threatening my safety or deceasing someone who's trying to take my life!
Anonymous #1 asked:
"I'm extremely interested in the manner in which law enforcement personnel and the DA Office will evaluate my self-defense actions . . .
Can you provide a summary of the key points so I can know whether or not it will be worth it to purchase a video that provides more detail?"
It has been a long time since I've had to write a book (DVD) report but I can tell you that the Deadly Force DVD goes into great detail about what the cops and the D.A. will be looking for to decide if you were or were not legally justified. There are many interviews with D.A.'s and cops about all this.
They even answer the question about the old idea that "if you shoot them outside, drag 'em back inside." (A bad idea!)
The DVD also shows scenarios -- real and staged -- in which the use of a gun is or is not legally justified. There are some really interesting interviews with criminals, too. I learned much really useful information.
Thats's about all I can tell you. Take a look at the website. I just checked and there is more information there: http://www.projectile.com
Erin Weed has some thoughts on this....
http://girlsfightback.com/html/aboutus.html
I was talking to my daughter about "rights" the other day in response to some in school converations she had. In that discussion I realized that we do not get our rights from the law, we get our rights by dying and killing. Our rights in America were established in The Revoloutionary War, protected in the War of 1812, Second World War, and now in the War against Terrorism.
Rights for Black Americans were won through people who paid the ultimate sacrifice like Dr. King. Rights are purchased and maintained with blood. There are exceptions, but I wonder how many people died in the Women's Sufferage movement. It was a sobering thought. But it gave me some comfort to realize that the UN did not have the ability to kill enough of us to take away our right to bear arms and protect ourselves.
Trey
mr. snitch-
(I'm the anonymous that had the other lengthy response to you.)
Your basic connection is wrong: Relationships don't 'make up for' being defenseless. Relationships are considered the defense. Densely-packed urban dwellers think differenetly than those who live in less densely populated areas. In fact, if you were to take New Yorkers and transplant them en masse to, say, New Mexico, and the reverse, you'd eventually begin to see a change in philosophy. Not complete, of course, but you'd see the shift. And note that the basic prevailing 'liberal' (leftist) approach and more conservative approach associated with these geographic areas does not change much over time. The situation/environment affects behavior, although few hard-core urbanites can bring themselves to acknowledge how the presence of so many others affects them, and how dependent they really are.
I don't find this argument convincing and there's a lot of data to bear me out. There are a number of cases of people being assaulted and murdered for extended periods of time in public and even in the hallways of their own buildings. It's nice to have other people that might help you but its even better to be prepared to defend yourself AND have other people that might help you.
What's the suburban dweller's first instinct? I must take care of this situation. What's the urban dweller's first instinct? Someone [else whose responsibility this is, maybe a cop or a Guardian Angel or a good Samaritan] should do something about this situation.
A gun is a considerable responsibility. So is self-defense. It's not surprising, if you study urban behavior, that urbanites want to lay these responsibilities at someone else's feet. Subruban dwellers are not necessarily more noble, but they are at least resigned to the need for more self-reliance. Some grow into their responsibilities.
Turn back the clock, place Helen at age 8 or so in New York or Boston to be raised there, and you have a very different person with different views today. (Not that anyone wants THAT.)
I disagree with this. I think it's mainly a matter of education, experience, and conditioning. There are large cities in the US that allow gun ownership, so its not just an urban phenomenon. People in the gun control cities are usually brought up to see guns themselves as dangerous and to only see them in the hands of police and criminals, so they take on a sort of fearful, taboo aspect to them. They don't see guns owned by family members or neighbors and they aren't educated about them so this also adds to the taboo or mystique. So they often tend to perceive them as dangerous in and off themselves rather than tools for hunting or self-defense.
And it's weird, but there seems to be this odd paternalistic dynamic - those raised in a gun control environment don't seem to see themselves as responsible enough to own a gun or be responsible for their own defense. It's weird, because they know that the police and criminals that own guns in the gun control areas aren't much different from the average person, but yet there's this perception that the average person shouldn't be able to exercise their rights and provide for their own defense.
So if Dr. Helen was raised in a gun control area and didn't have any relatives or friends to educate her about gun ownership and gun rights she might have a different opinion. But it is possible to come to a pro-gun rights position just by careful thinking and analysis.
It's a fair observation up to a point. Towns that never became truly urban eventually saw some relaxation of the rules (besides, as you say, the sherrif couldn't pragmatically disarm an entire town, forever). However, my point is that under certain circumstances people will lay down their right to bear arms. Those circumstances exist today in urban areas, and those inhabitants believe that the world would be better off following their lead. As I have said, they do not understand the roots of their own behavior, and they are wrong. Not that merely wrong never stopped anyone from believing they are right.
Well as I stated above I think its largely a function of education and how the issue is framed. "Reducing Gun Violence" is how the issue is framed so it sounds like you're a wacko if you oppose it. It's not framed as "Making Law-Abiding Citizens Unable to Defend Themselves".
anonymous 2:08AM-
Why do I then read of so many tragic incidents where people are killed by "law abiding citizens" and their guns who flip out and shoot up their workplaces or lay in wait for their ex-spouses at courthouses, or who go on rampages shooting children at McDonalds or Philipino postmen walking their rounds?
These so-called "law abiding citizens" are only law abiding until they flip out and kill someone.
Yes, unfortunately there are some tragedies. And with 5+ 24-hour news channels you get to hear about it again and again with no relation to what percentage of the time these rare incidents actually occur. If it bleeds, it leads, as they say in the industry. And if nothing in particular was bleeding that day they replay something that was bleeding last week, last year, or last decade.
But if someone really wants to hurt other people there are other ways they can do it. Witness the guy who ran over a bunch of people in CA recently. (San Francisco, I think.) And even if guns were banned someone could just buy a gun on the black market that would expand exponentially the day after guns were banned.
Regarding the UN as being harmless:
I wouldn't be so sure. As the economy and various other factors make things more global it is very likely that international laws and rules may creep up in the wake of globalization. The UN and similar bodies are infatuated with the UK's gun prohibition model and would like to see it imposed world-wide. So I wouldn't be surprised if certain parties try to slip gun prohibition initiatives into various free-trade agreements or the like and then tried to get them enforced.
Also realize that there will be other methods that people will try to use as a back-door way to implement gun prohibition. The mental health establishment is one likely avenue - try to get more and more people "diagnosed" with some kind of condition so they can claim that they shouldn't own a gun. The insurance industry might be another - claim that gun ownership is a prohibitive liability. Emergency situations is another - they tried it with Katrina but there was a backlash so they sort of backed off. My bet is if there is another terrorist attack they may try again - for your "safety".
anonymous 8:10-
No, urban is meant as urban, meaning not rural or suburban. And I wasn't using it as a code word for the n-word or any other racial, ethnic, and/or relgious slur. Personally, I find that implication pretty insulting. And for your information I am a libertarian, not a conservative. And yes - there are big differences. I also happen to disagree with the current administration on a number of major issues. So cut the crap, not everyone here is a neocon, or even a conservative. And not everyone that supports the 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a conservative.
You might want to do some reading into how private gun ownership played a role in the civil rights movement in the south. That's illustrative of how gun ownership rights are important rights for everyone.
All I have to say on the issue is my dear friend, Marvin, was held up at gun point a few years ago. He fought back and now he's dead. I don't need my wallet with my $20, driver's licence and one lonely credit card that badly.
Go ahead, be hero but don't expect to live long.
Cham,
The sad truth is that your friend could have acted passively etc. and still been killed anyway--there is no 100% sure way to stay alive during a robbery--fighting back is one option that sometimes works (but is many times actively discouraged when it may be the right thing to do) acting passively or running is sometimes an option and sometimes, there are people in the world who just want others dead, for no other reason then a few bucks, a good laugh or to show off. I am sorry about your friend.
I think that the US (or at least urban US) could learn a little from those of us in the mideast.
Two examples - I was walking near the bus station in my home town and saw a suspicious looking man pulling a heavy brief case on wheels. Then I saw he had a gun and realized he was one of the good guys.
My 13 year old twins were shocked when I told them that no one in NYC walks around with a gun.
Self defense as a right starts with the individual and moves up to the nation. If an individual has no right, then why would a nation?
So, isn't gun control just part of keeping the Constitution "flexible, fluid, and protean"? I mean, shitting on the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments seems to be the Republican thing these days; why not take an equal-opportunity dump?
From Anonymous: "There are a number of cases of people being assaulted and murdered for extended periods of time in public and even in the hallways of their own buildings."
I didn't say the relationships WOULD protect anyone, just that this was the social perception in urban settings. I went on at some length about the shifting of responsibility for self-defense. The fact that people are assaulted in and around their own homes, in fact, makes the case for self-defense.
" I think it's mainly a matter of education, experience, and conditioning."
That's not dissimilar from my meaning. Living in tightly-packed urban situations affects behavior and thinking (I'm talking about 'big' cities here - New York, Chicago, LA, a few others). Yes, there are cities that allow gun ownership, but that does not mean the average person living in them either knows how to defend themselves, owns/knows how to use a gun, or thinks it's his/her job to provide his/her own safety in the first place.
"those raised in a gun control environment don't seem to see themselves as responsible enough to own a gun or be responsible for their own defense. "
The dynamics of these situations seem to be self-perpetuating. I don't expect NYC to ever become a gun-totin' sort of town, no matter how bad things might get (remembering the 70's here, a desperate time when there was still no big movement toward handguns... though there were a lot more self-defense classes offered as I recall).
"So if Dr. Helen was raised in a gun control area and didn't have any relatives or friends to educate her about gun ownership and gun rights she might have a different opinion. But it is possible to come to a pro-gun rights position just by careful thinking and analysis."
Anything's possible for the individual. For the masses, no. I make no claims at being 'expert' but I have created communications for a good number of winning local political campaigns. I know that an approach that works for one locality won't work in another, and I have a pretty good estimation of why.
This is a particularly interesting subject to me and I am inclined to run on about it. I'll limit myself (this time) to noting that modern political campaigns conducted nationally break sensistive messages up by area. This gets fine-tuned by a number of factors, but overall the urban audience gets a message different than the exurban one. That reflects different values and thinking when people are packed into close proximity. One could write a book on why this is so, and some people probably have.
I think you contend that nurture at a sub-local level (family, friends) counteracts macro-local factors. I submit that most families tend to be not much more than a subset of the local culture. Here in lovely Hudson County, NJ, we have what's known as a 'culture of corruption'. Does this mean that everyone is corrupt? Well, I'd hesitate to say 'yes'. But I would say that if you examined each person's actions who claims NOT to so contribute (and you better believe, everyone says just that), you would find myriad ways in which they enable the kinds of theft that has made this area notorious.
From another commenter: "my dear friend, Marvin, was held up at gun point a few years ago. He fought back and now he's dead."
Yes, I feel badly about Marvin as well. But as Helen said, there's no guarantee in being passive, either. Also, I can't assume Marvin fought back for the $20. Maybe he did, but maybe he was fighting for his right NOT to be violated in this way. For a good many people, just giving in is rather like saying 'I acknowledge that I have no rights here'. I've had my house broken into and robbed a couple of times through the years. It's not like being raped, but it is a personal violation as far as I am concerned.
LaPierre also stands up for any citizen's right to hunt kindergarteners with a machine gun -- as happened in California not so long ago.
Untrue on several counts.
1)The NRA is perfectly happy with the current laws regarding machine guns. Acquiring a legally transferrable fully automatic weapon requires a signoff by local law enforcement and a Federal background check. There are a quarter million legal machine guns in private hands and only one case of one being used to commit a murder using one in the last fifty years.
2) The kindergarten shooting in California did not involve a machine gun, legal or otherwise. It involved a semi-automatic AK47, a scary looking badass weapon no more powerful than a 30-30 deer rifle, but popular with criminals partly because of negative publicity. The deer rifle might actually have increased the death toll, as the shooter did a "spray and pray" and half his shots hit the wall over the children's heads.
3) The NRA supports locking up criminals. The shooter in this case had a record ranging from prostitution to armed robbery but the California courts repeatedly refused to lock him up. Comments made before the shooting suggest that he was testing their limits, and had come up with something they couldn't ignore.
I suspect Harry Eager knew exactly what happened in California.
Why he misrepresented the issue is a question.
Dr. Helen asked why men resist going to therapy.
Part of it is related to this.
When a woman says, "We need to talk" she really means "I need to complain about you."
When a woman says, "We need to talk to a counselor" I think she really means "I need someone to back me up in complaining about you."
Anon 2:26:
Which is why I don't bother to try to discuss relationship issues anymore. I try to be as patient as I can for as long as I can. Then, when I've had enough and I see things are not going to change, I leave. No discussion.
Is that preferable?
Andrea
Andrea,
Yes.
Rusty
Why aren't women encouraged to learn how to use and then carry weapons? It used to freak me out when my sisters lived in dangerous sections of Philadelphia.
Cham,
Backing up what Helen and Snitch said, I had a high school friend who did exactly what you're advocating. He gave them his money and keys.
The thug put my friend on his knees and shot him execution style in the back of the head.
He didn't live long that way either.
fotd said: "Also, the way I see it, if liberals controlled the house and senate there would be less violent situations in the first place. This is because people would actually get rehabilatated and their would be a good economy so people would'nt have a reason to steal."
What is wrong with the economy? How will raising taxes and more government spending help?
anonymous @ 11:56 am said: "So, isn't gun control just part of keeping the Constitution "flexible, fluid, and protean"? I mean, shitting on the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments seems to be the Republican thing these days; why not take an equal-opportunity dump?"
What have Republicans done to the 1st Amendment? It seems like it's the Democrats who don't care about it with deciding which words are acceptable to use and defining which religious beliefs are acceptable. Plus there was probably more damage done to the 4th amendment during Clinton's term than at any time during Bush's term.
免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
免費視訊聊天
ut聊天室辣妹視訊
kk777視訊俱樂部
UT影音視訊聊天室
吉澤明步
85cc免費影片
立花里子無碼
aaa片免費看短片
美女視訊
台南視訊,080情人網
日本免費視訊
aa片免費看
視訊網愛聊天室
影音視訊交友
咆哮小老鼠分享論壇
sex520免費影片
aio辣妺視訊
百事無碼a片
jp成人影片
免費av成人 情色
免費視訊美女色美眉部落格
168論壇視訊辣妹
免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友
s383視訊玩美女人
34c高雄視訊聊天
yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
aaa俱樂部
jp成人
Show-live視訊聊天室
免費視訊辣妹
QQ美女視訊秀
live173影音視訊聊天室
真人視訊交友
辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室
倉井空免費影片
UT視訊美女交友
視訊美女 寫真
視訊情色網
亞洲東洋影片avdvd
ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊
激情網愛聊天
秘密情人影音視訊網
av無碼,一夜情,偷拍,免費影片下載
色漫畫帝國sex888免費看影
拓網視訊交友
34c視訊網愛聊天室
xxx383美女寫真迷愛聊天
sex999免費影片兼職援交
辣妹視訊網
免費視訊78論壇
情色香港論壇
我愛78論壇情色情趣 商品
美女show-live視訊情色
美眉共和國080情人網
s383情色大網咖視訊
aaa免費看影片
kk777視訊俱樂部
小魔女影城
sexy diamond sex888入口
104免費成人情色文學小說
免費成人影片,g點
彩虹無碼av女優
成人免費視訊 完美女人
美女短片免費試看
tw33 影片交流
南台灣視訊網愛聊天室
sex888movie影城
18 禁亞洲名模瘋情
洪爺免費線上歐美A片段觀看
情人辣妹影片視訊直播
QQ美女視訊秀
hi5 tv免費影片sex貼片網
新浪視訊
日本視訊小魔女自拍
美女交友影音視訊聊天室
domain hilive.tv限制級
sex888免費看影片波霸美女寫真
love104影音live秀
甜心寶貝直播貼片自慰
捷克論壇
桃園援交小魔女自拍天堂
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home