Ottawa article necessitates JPFO article

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lucky

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
2,919
Location
Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
Does anyone have a link to the article (JPFO I think) that talked about the mindset of anti-gunners, and delved into their problems with projection? I found 2 similar articles on their site, but not the long one I'm thinking of.

To set the story, recently in a park in Ottawa a naked girl was stabbed and left over night in a park, was found at 5 AM the next morning and died in hospital an hour later. Doing our bit, a bunch of people wrote letters to the paper on behalf of CCW.

But it's not just a liberal town, it's a Liberal town. Here's the paper's response:


Some people just shouldn't read the following article, it will aggravate high blood pressure - you are warned;



PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Sun =20
DATE: 2006.12.14=20
EDITION: Final =20
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion =20
PAGE: 15 =20
BYLINE: GEOFF MATTHEWS =20
WORD COUNT: 584=20

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Life under the gun? No thanks=20

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

I once owned a gun. Owned it for about a week, in fact.=20

I bought it on a Friday night in a Halifax tavern from a friend of a
friend. It was a .22-calibre rifle that, to the best of my recollection,
cost me $20.=20

It was brand new and, as I understood the story, had "gone missing" from
a shipment to a local store.=20

Why I bought it is a mystery, since I have always been deathly afraid of
the things and would never be able to bring myself to shoot even a rat.=20

But it was Friday night and the beer was flowing and the price was right
so I bought the gun. This, of course, was long before today's regulated
system that would have required registration forms, a firearms
acquisition certificate and some training before I could have made the
purchase.=20

I took the rifle home, shoved it into a closet and did my best to
convince myself that it was a good thing to have on hand. Just in case,
you know, someone ever tried to break in to my house and harm me or a
family member.=20

But just having the weapon in my home had the opposite effect on me.
Instead of feeling secure, I felt frightened.=20

Stupid acts=20

What if, one night, I had too much to drink and I did something stupid
with the gun? Maybe tried to reprise that teenaged event when, using a
friend's gun, I tried to shoot the dot off the "i" on the neon sign
outside the local dairy bar?=20

What if I mistook the footsteps of the landlord for those of an
intruder?=20

What if I tried to pick off a can from the top of the fence and instead
sent a shot through the neighbour's window?=20

A week after acquiring the rifle I resold it -- to another friend in
another tavern. For the same amount I had paid for it. And I have never,
in the 30 or so years since, owned a firearm of any kind.=20

I have shot one the odd time, but only on a target range and always
under the careful supervision of someone who had the training and common
sense to make sure I was doing it safely.=20

I put all this on the record as background before entering into the
debate that has sprung up again over whether ordinary citizens should be
allowed to carry guns with them as they walk the streets of our cities
and towns. Several people have written letters to this newspaper in the
wake of the brutal murder of Kelly Morrisseau, the 27-year-old who was
stabbed and left to die last Sunday in Gatineau Park.=20

There was a similar outpouring after September's shootings at Dawson
College in Montreal.=20

Michel Trahan of Verdun wrote: "It seems like not a week goes by without
some defenceless woman been attacked ... Shouldn't we take action to
allow them to better protect themselves? Why is it socially tolerable
that a woman be attacked by an armed criminal, raped, strangled, stabbed
and dumped in a back alley. But it is not acceptable that she also be
armed to face the threat?"=20

George Penfold of North York asked: "How many of these murdered young
women would be alive today had they been allowed some means of
self-defence? Perhaps these so-called feminists could explain to the
victims' parents why it's better to have a dead daughter than a dead
criminal."=20

And from Bill Kushniryk in Swan River, Man.: "Do you really think some
goon would consider attacking a person if he thought he/she might be
armed. Don't you understand that these scumbags are cowards?"=20

Here's what I do understand: That every additional weapon on our streets
is a threat to public safety. This isn't the Wild West of TV land where
arguments were settled on the street at high noon. It's a civilized
country where respect for one another has to take a front row to getting
even and issuing threats.=20

I know some people get a kick out of target shooting and deer hunting. I
know farmers need guns to chase predators away from their livestock.=20

But the idea of the guy standing next to me at the bar packing a pistol
under his sports jacket scares me a heck of a lot more than the
possibility of a stranger taking a shot at me as I walk home.
 
It's a civilized
country where respect for one another has to take a front row to getting
even and issuing threats.

Must go to bars that aren't frequented by the people I'm used to being in bars with... Must be nice.

Plenty of bars where I'm from are frequented by drug dealers, bikers (not the nice urban type bikers) hopped up addicts and hookers ;)
 
It might be worthwhile to write a response letter that points out that, whatever the baseless fears of the author, millions of guns are owned by hundreds of thousands of responsible folks who don't do ANY of those things.

I would probably throw in a bit that I think the writer was underestimating his own decency and sense of responsibility but that if he wasn't, that his decision that HE not have a gun was probably correct.

But that that doesn't mean everyone else (as evidenced by the low rates of accident or use in crime) isn't capable of owning, carrying and using guns safely.
 
We should..

listen to a man that values livestock over the lives of young women?

I know farmers need guns to chase predators away from their livestock.

The context of that line leads me to believe that the author is okay with this use of firearms, but doesn't want young women to be able to protect themselves to the same level as a farmer does his livestock.

I was a bit taken aback that this supposedly grown man's lengthy recital of his various character flaws and the number of things he fears. I wonder if he also take public transportation. Doesn't he have similiar fears of following crawling behind the wheel when drunk?

migoi
 
wow:confused: :eek: :barf: :barf: :fire:

So let me project; he's a serial rapist who loves having no risk of a victim shooting him and the thought of being shot at "on his way home" scares him.

I wonder if he likes my projections about the caracter and choices of other people:fire: :fire:

The best defense for this type of hippie is to project him as something he's not so he can say how obserd it is. Then he may learn.

example;
I use to drive a car, but then the thought of hitting a person made me sell it, what if I killed someone's grandmother! I just didn't see a need for such a murderous device. I just can't imagine how selfish and blood thirsty all motorists must be, wanting to drive a tool of death around potentially killing someone just so they can play "nascar".
 
The man bought a stolen rifle in a bar. He shot at stuff, including a restaurant sign, in a populated area. He sold the stolen rifle in another bar. He continually contemplated killing people with his rifle.

He has issues, but there was a JPFO article about 2 pages long that was a really good treatise on the mindset of anti-gunners.

The only thing of which I'm not sure is whether to send him the JPFO article, or send the JPFO his article.
 
That's a good point migoi. I'd throw that (with a slightly less dismissive tone) into a letter as well.

Something like...

I'm glad to see you recognize the need farmers have to have and carry a firearm to protect their cows and sheep from predators. But I'm confused why you also think that women shouldn't carry firearms to protect themselves from human predators. Isn't a woman's life worth more than a cow?

When pointing out logical inconsistencies, being aggressive makes you sound "mean" and argumentative to an audience and they can ignore your point and go after your tone. Whereas just politely questioning them calmly puts the burden on them to try to explain, logically, their stupid beliefs. When read or heard by fence-sitting third parties you want to be the nice, helpful, logical one and make the other guy look like the strident blithering idiot.
 
I think the title of the newspaper article should be:

"Why I have no balls"

because that's what this person sounds like. "What if I shot my landlord?" Here's an idea, DON'T SHOOT AT A SOUND! Dumbass. Also, newsflash, we don't settle things like 'high-noon'. Usually, you scream bloody murder and "help!" at the top of your lungs, pray to God, and draw your firearm in the course of a couple seconds, while taking down your attacker.

I lived in Canada for a couple years, I used to agree with people when they talked about how scary the culture of guns in the US was. You know what happened? I moved to the Texas and got the hell over my fear. Know what else? I've got a CCW permit.
 
Julia Gorin's Response

Not to this particular piece of tripe, but to this variety of tripe in general.

Julia Gorin



http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.


A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.


He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.


Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.


People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.


Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.


The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.


No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.


Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).


In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
 
That guy belongs in jail. Purchase of stolen goods. It wasn't even that he inadvertantly bought stolen goods, he was told it was stolen goods. Anyone who buys stolen firearms belongs in jail.

Having stolen goods sitting around my home would make me nervous too, even if it was just a stolen DVD player.

Yea, that nitwit shouldn't own a gun. He already has proven he does stupid stuff on impluse when drunk, SUCH AS BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY. Luckiy, if he gets arrested, charged, and convicted for it, he won't be allowed to legally own guns.

Now, leave the rest of us who CAN act responsibly alone.
 
Thanks for that link, shooter tx, i'll show that to some of the folks i work with who wonder why " such a nice guy like you wants to own guns"
 
His fear of "standing next to a guy packing a pistol in a bar" is absurd. I do not know of any legal CCW while in a bar. If he's going to a bar that he thinks people are carrying pistols, he should probably go somewhere else.(Unless its a cop bar)

I've also heard the same old saying about "compensating for something" and you know they are right. I'm compensating for a criminal with a weapon, be it a knife, bat, brick, musles or a gun.
 
Sheeple, those who buy stolen guns, shoot at private property, get scared of being caught with stolen weapon, then give it/ sell it after thinking about shooting others by accident for not following the rules of shooting.
God Bless the USA, where I can legally buy a weapon, train with a weapon in a controlled environment, and help my daughter to do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top